Categorized | Commentary/Editorial

Politico Resurrects Tucson in Reporting Governor Palin’s Post, Update: Politico Corrects Their Article

Governor Palin’s inspirational and thoughtful post is making its rounds on the net.  It’s surfaced over at the Huffington Post as well as other left-wing hang outs.

However, this one at Politico caught my attention.

In it, they begin and end their reporting of it by reminding Americans of the Tuscon shooting and further implying that Governor Palin had something to do with a massacre carried out by a left-wing lunatic who hated Gabby Giffords long before anyone knew who Sarah Palin was. (Emphasis)

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin — who was harshly criticized for her response to the January 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz. — is telling Americans in the wake of Newtown to put their faith in God and ignore political and media “elites.”


After the shooting in Tucson, some liberals pointed a finger at Palin, who released a map showing Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the attack’s target, in a pair of cross hairs. Palin accused the media of manufacturing “blood libel,” and her poll numbers plummeted.

Try not to choke on that.  "Some liberals?"  Okay, fine.  There was at least one liberal I can think of who criticized the media and the left for politicizing the tragedy.  It was Bob Beckel and that was only because he was the one who invented the concept of the map Palin took criticism for.  And it’s true, Palin was "harshly criticized" for her response to the shooting.  However; nobody can still truly explain exactly why when all Palin was doing was debunking the "blood libel" manufactured by the media.

Further, despite the characterization of this political piece, the Palin-map did not reflect a picture of Giffords in a pair of crosshairs.

The game the left plays with Palin goes kind of like this: A.) Let’s start a rumor or accuse her of something.  B.) Wait for her to respond to it.  C.) Then attack her for the response.

The Tucson debacle mirrored her resignation this way.  Immediately returning to Alaska after her 2008 VP run, left-wingers bombarded her with frivolous ethics charges.  She then resigned to prevent them from further abusing the Ethics Act.  Now all we hear about is the resignation.

With Tuscon, it was literally minutes from the original reporting of the shooting that the media and the AP began connecting the tragedy to Governor Palin.  They criticized her for not coming out to comment on it immediately.  Then, when she did, they "harshly criticized" that.

It was that false (and disgusting) smear that propelled President Obama to give a speech on civility.  The only problem is, he didn’t rebuke those who falsely accused her of it.  Instead he used the media’s perpetuation of a lie by left-wingers to further build on a narrative against one of his political enemies.

Keep in mind; this was the same man who immediately told all of us to not "jump to conclusions" in the case of Malik Hasan who sprayed bullets into 40+ of our bravest and finest at Ft. Hood.

You’d have thought that Mr. President could have taken just a few moments — given the magnitude of the focus on Governor Palin during the Tucson tragedy — to remind Americans to not "jump to conclusions" in the case of a fellow American, even if she served as a political threat.

But you see, speaking out against something without crony capitalism being involved or without a special-interest payoff lurking behind the curtains is not what you’ll find of a typical Chicago politician who knows of nothing but protecting his own political hide.

We’re used to the left doing this.  They survive because of untrue narratives, not facts.  There really is no further way to debunk smear against a former Governor who literally had nothing to do with a tragedy that the left still tries to blame her for.  Meanwhile, nobody seems to care that a concussion is keeping Hillary Clinton from testifying on the Benghazi deaths.

We’re fortunate and lucky to have someone like Governor Palin who will speak the truth to these matters.  We need it.  Politico as well as other media outlets (including some that are supposed to be on our side) will continue to politicize tragedies for ratings and for agenda.  By doing so, they will continue to contribute to these senseless acts by teaching an entire generation how to manufacture hate for someone in lieu of simply reporting the facts.


Thanks to all of your tweets and others out there, Politico has added a correction to their article.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated what Sarah Palin’s map cross hairs were over. They were over Gabrielle Giffords’s congressional district.

Of course, they could have been 100% forthright and mentioned that Governor Palin had nothing to do with the Tucson tragedy at all.  They could have pointed out the media’s perpetuation of this myth along with their manufactured hate for Governor Palin which has created an epic amount of intolerance for her and her family and apologized for contributing to it.

But I guess we ought to be grateful for any correction at all.

Tags: , , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • momofsons

    Jeff Goldstein is right.  We really really need to go on the offensive here before they set the narrative in stone and establish false debate parameters.  I say we declare this a democrat war on men.  They too should have a right to choose.   

  • cbenoistd

    "Palin accused the media of manufacturing “blood libel,” and her poll numbers plummeted."

    Good thing they don’t hold a grudge, isn’t it?

  • blueniner

    I would love to see Politico go broke and fold. Back when they had the lttle Putz, troll, Ben Smith, it was almost daily he had columns bashing Sarah Palin, he stalked her like no other, there were others but he was the main perpertrator over at Politico.

  • cbenoistd

    "Palin, who released a map showing Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the attack’s target…"

    Gabrielle Giffords’ head? Her face? I don’t think so!

  • Mr.L

    After the media misreported the events in Newtown, CT all day long last Friday and still do in some cases today, all while acting as a propaganda arm for the Obama administration & DNC who look to not let this crisis go to waste and use it to disarm responsible gun owners, do they really have any street cred left?

    • Freempg

      They’re dogs eating their own vomit.

    • goldenprez

       Mr. L … The main point of your comment above is exactly the problem.

      Not only did the Ministry of Propaganda get the reporting of Newtown wrong, they get everything wrong. Sometimes, as in this case, because they are incompetent, but mostly intentionally.

      The politically astute who are tuned in to the left wing outlets, such as Politico, as well as Fox News, comprise a miniscule portion of the electorate. The problem is in getting through to the population at large. It is in this area that the grassroots conservatives need to gather their forces, resources, and implement new ideas for neutralizing the Ministry of Propaganda.

      I have been advocating in this area for some time now. We need to allocate resources to the mass popular media, especially television, as that medium reaches the most people.

      We need fresh ideas as to how to use mass popular media to our advantage.

      Any ideas?

      Through them all out! The status quo must go!

      Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

      Illegitimi non carborundum.

      Barracudas Maximus.

      • CapitalG

        GoldenPrez I think rallies outside their broadcast outlets is an obvious start. Organize a march on CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC to demand an end to their bias and outright propaganda. Even at FOX although perhaps they may be an outlet to reach more like minded individuals and should be commended for standing outside the ‘circle of liberal bias’.

        Get multiple groups organized for the event such as the TEA Party, NRA members, etc. There should be a reasonable advance date set and the message needs to be spread. Consider ‘recurring protests’ to encourage a way to grow the protests and spread word of the ‘movement’. Organize ‘supporting efforts’ like ‘photo bombing’ live news stories with anti liberal bias messages (walk behind reporter and say ‘CNN Lies’ or write it on your hand Palin style and flash it on camera). Get a group to go to an SNL show and start chanting ‘end liberal bias’ during a political skit or something. Use their own tools to spread the message.

        At the protests have presentations that highlight their bias. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, Holder – highlight multiple failures of the media failure to properly investigate and report on stories that might damage the President. Highlight their failure to criticize racist insults hurled towards Republican minorities. Call out the recent examples of ‘Hollywood types’ unleashing their vile rants. Create videos highlighting the bias. Make America realize just how much like Goebbels the leftist propaganda machine is.

        Occupy the Media, in a sense – but not in the dirty, disease and rape infested type of Occupation. A more reasonable and civilized Occupation with a coherent message. Use Occupy imagery. Create a ‘Guy Fawkes’ character using the ‘Tragedy and Comedy’ masks.

        • goldenprez

          CapitalG … You’ve got to think bigger.

          The combined audiences for the media outlets you mention above, with the exception of ABC, as I mentioned, is miniscule. There are 100 million people, give or take, who voted for Obamao. The combined viewership of those outlets, again with the exception of ABC, does not even reach one million. Forget about them, they have absolutely no influence. It is the tens of millions who get their news, information, and entertainment from the popular media, newspapers and television, who need to be reached.

          And they need to be reached more subtly than "protests."

          All of the above shows and outlets you mention are taped. Anything that is untoward will be edited out, as though it never existed.

          Create a comedy show similar to SNL. The comedy and parody should revolve around liberals and their point of view. There is nothing more devastating than belittling, caricaturing, and ridiculing your target. It is one of the left’s most effective tactics.

          How does such a show get on the air? Barter syndication. In this situation, the outlets are given the show "free" and the commercial minutes are split between the outlet and the syndicator.  Worst case scenario is for the syndicator to purchase the time, and keep all the commercial minutes therein.

          Either way, the key to broadcast television is advertising. There are enough companies, with right wing owners, to buy the advertising to make it viable.

          That is the type of thinking that it is going to take to neutralize the Ministry of Propaganda, and get through to the millions.

          Throw them all out! The status quo must go!

          Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

          Illegitimi non carborundum.

          Barracudas Maximus.

          • Mr.L

             100 million votes for Obama? because I only see him getting little over 60 mil a month ago. Some 80-90 million people who could vote in this country did not. about the same in 2008. pop culture is important and I support the idea of infiltration of it. but all of us better start talking to family, friends, neighbors and co workers who are of that great number that doesn’t vote and get them educated via common sense on the issues and get them to vote.  No I think a large demonstration of a media outlet is effective.  Because a channel like MSNBC or NBC and the people who work there think they are on the right side of history and many folks need to show them they are not.  never underestimate the power of showing a media type or a movie star that you do not like them.  these are lunatics who believe they’re loved by everyone. in their minds, they’re not supposed to be getting protested.  to them, demonstrations are for politicians and corporations. 

        • Mr.L

           Brent Bozell was on some Fox show and said the same thing about a tea party demonstration against the media and I totally believe that should be done.  A for P, Accuracy in Media, Breitbart, Tea Party Express and Bozell’s org should organize a large demonstration outside of 30 Rock very soon.

      • Mr.L

         I know what you’re saying. While the TV media is a culprit, but I don’t know how effective they are anymore. There have been a few studies and many polls take recently that shows the majority of the public see the media, especially the TV media, as a broken medium that cannot be trusted.  Today the media probably has the same kind of approval numbers as both chambers of Congress. I’ve always believed that if someone like Palin was a declared candidate she would be able to talk over the heads of the media and directly to the public. I remember fondly her 2011 bus tour and the appearance at the Iowa state fair. She stood their like a good soldier answering all of the reporter’s questions and reacting positively and often witty to some of their antics. 
        I happen to think left wing sites like Yahoo do more damage than other media outlets.  To many people that is the first site they visit in the morning.  Some people are on and off of that site while at work.  And they read that absurd scroll in the middle with the headlines.  So they can take a line from one of her Fox appearances out of context or completely bias a headline about her making something up that just isn’t true.  Many dunces believe it, they don’t follow up and they don’t care.
        Another unlikely culprit is news radio.  Again I recall summer of 2011 right around the Iowa crony capitalism speech.  I remember sitting at my desk listening to a local AM music station that, during commercial breaks, would also have a major affiliate break in with the top stories of the hour.  This AM station had Fox News radio doing the top stories.  the announcer read off a bunch of news stories and at the very end in the lead out to go back to my local station the broad reads " And Sarah Palin is rumored to have had an affair with Glen Rice in the 1980s blah blah blah and Palin or Rice could not be reached for comment." 
        And I thought, I bunch of people are driving out there trapped in their cars all over the country and they hear that lead out– regardless of whether it was true, it wasn’t– with no explanation, no follow up, no details.  Just like a drive by shooting. 

        • Craig Phillips

          Reply to Mr L;

          Mr L, I’m an Aussie who lives in Sydney and I absolutely love Sarah Palin & repect her non-manipulative leadership style – totally natural, pragmatic and with integrity.
          I was also a great admirer of President Reagan back in the 80’s when I was a young teenager,
          and have had a strong interest in US politics since that time.

          I’ve also started checking into your radio show & listening to you commentary and I enjoy it so very much – thank you for that, and thank you for checking in here at C4P and occasionally sharing your thoughts with us.

          I was listening to your’s & Mark Levin’s recent comments about this awful & bewildering incident in Connecticut and how the left took no time at all to try & use the issue to push for gun control
          and also how the stories line up at places like realclearpolitics where I see the snapshots of headlines etc and I thought about how difficult it might be to take on the gun control issue in the current environment…because of the understandably strong emotive reactions to children being most of the victims.

          I’m beginning to form the view that mental illness has been the major factor in this tragedy, and no amount of gun control will fix that if the supports and treatment for these kind of conditions are inadequate in the community – this applies to Australia too; in 1996, Martin Bryant went on
          a shooting spree in Port Arthur in Tasmania – killed 35 people & injured 21 – he turned out to have had mental problems all through his growing up & schooling but was not properly cared for.
          After that massacre, Australia implemented stronger gun laws – even though ours have always been much much stronger then theose in the USA.

          But the problem was his mental illness!

          I had a great thought ( I don’t get many ) that cheered me up no end – I imagined Sarah commencing a series of public statements about mental illness and tying it into how our communities ought to take care of those afflicated with a condition they had no choice over ( genuine cases of course )…in a way, tying it in with her heart for special needs kids and those who vulnerable due to disability etc.

          For example, I recall in the 2008 election Sarah made a speech regarding their ( McCain/Palin ) commitment to fully funding the "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" and this clearly was something she felt genuinely strongly about.

          I thought how effective it might be in developing a theme of caring for the most vulnerable – such as the unborn, young children like those victims, those with special needs, and also those with mental illness- for those individuals sake and to ensure they are properly treated, but also for everyone elses sake so everyone else is properly protected. Not to beat up on the mentally ill, but to treat them..and this is humane for ALL!

          Imagine how the left heads would explode if she took that up – like a major pivot;

           I mean how many democrats were involved in the process of deinstitutionalisation of the mentally ill but never bothered to follow the results, know that a huge proportion of the homeless are mentally ill, and yet they yabber ONLY for gun control?

          I think it could tie into an excellent theme of REAL compassionate conservatism ( true Sarah Palin type – not crappy old "bush" type ).

          Where government stops wasting time & money on all the stuff they try & do but all the while poor mothers & parents are left alone to cope with kids with conditions that would drive you & me insane, not having any respite or even a day off in years & years, or maybe living in fear of their own relatives  – but still trying because they love them but don’t know what to do etc.

          Imagine Sarah shifting the current "gun control" debate to one of the issue of mental health, and how we need to protect the vulnerable including the mentally ill, but also their possible victims;

          Mercy, combined with resolution and decisive action –  on the issues of treatment for mental illness and special needs, and disabilities etc – it would really shift the debate because she wouldn’t have to defend guns  – but would immediately jump laterally to the issue of disasterous mental health treatment policies over the last few decades, tying it in with those other causes relating to special needs and the vulnerable.

          Just a few humble thoughts as an interested observer from afar.

          By the way, I havent as yet heard the President say anything about the mental health issue…not anything at all!

          You Rock Mr L !!!

          • Joy Daniels Brower

            Absolutely BRILLIANT idea – and wonderfully stated & developed, Craig Phillips!  I couldn’t agree more – and it would be Palin taking charge and riding herd OVER the media, the rotten LSM that’s as useless as tits on a bull!  It would focus attention to the REAL issue here (mental illness, as you’ve so carefully and passsionately laid out!) and relegate the gun control freaks to the sidelines, making their remakrs and opionions almost irrelevant by comparison!

            I hope, pray & trust that these very ideas have been on Sarah Palin’s radar as well…

            • Craig Phillips

              Oh wow!

              Thank you Joy!!

              You made me smile on the other side of the world :)

              Whether those ideas are on Sarah’s radar I can’t say, but you just KNOW they’d fit so well with who she is!

              Wishing you all the best of family, of life, & love over Christmas Joy…and also safe & blessed New Year!

              ( edited for keyboard slips – where the heck is spellcheck when you need it!! )

  • bongobear

    This is exactly what I expected.  Sarah Palin can’t make any statement regarding gun violence without getting slammed by the liberals and their media sycophants.  They hate her and they will never give her any positive press.  I say to hell with them.

    • ZH100

      No matter what Gov.Palin does she will be vilified by the LSM.

  • myfairlady

    This is how the media use their platform to try to tell those they don’t agree with to sit down and shut up.  I wish all of them would go bankrupt.  They just make me sick!

  • ZH100

    Excellent read. Thank you Steve Flesher.

    The Polutico article stated:

    " showing Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the attack’s target, in a pair of cross hairs."

    What was actually on Gov. Palin’s site, was a map with district markers (surveyor symbols were used). These surveyor symbols were used on the map to indicate the districts of Democrats .

    This is a surveyors mark (on Gov.Palin’s map):

    This is a crosshairs:

    Map symbols are placed on maps. It’s a pretty simple concept, really.
    The media turned surveyor symbols into crosshairs.

    Democrats used election maps with bullseyes on them and the liberal website Daily Kos put ‘bullseye’ on ‘dead to me’ Giffords.

    The person who has made Gov.Palin’s map with the districts of democrats used surveyor symbols (= map symbols to indicate districts ) and not chrosshairs.

  • MaMcGriz

    This says it all for me.

    "While on the subject of evil-doers, let me share my opinion on other
    evil-doers, none of which do acts even remotely similar to the shooter
    in Newtown.  A person who takes advantage of the privilege to be a
    journalist or a politician and uses that privilege to lie or to present
    opinion as fact, while hiding behind their 1st Amendment rights, is an
    evil-doer. No, they don’t  use a gun to destroy human life, but they use
    false words to shape public opinion.  Public opinion based on
    falsehoods is harmful.  It’s harmful to our way of life, it is harmful
    to our rights and it is harmful to our freedoms.  Their evil acts of
    false witness impact us for generations.  Their evil acts produce
    consequences, but not consequences for them, but for those of us who
    depend on them to do their jobs.  As an institution, the media are
    evil-doers.  As an institution, the Permanent Political Class are
    evil-doers. Until, we, the people, decide to take on these evil-doers
    and defeat them, our way of life will continue to go the way of the

    May we, as a people, find the strength to overcome the actions of
    those who pretend to have our best interests at heart.  May someone step
    forward to lead us toward achieving that."

    Amen. Thank you, RefudiateGOPe.

    Read the entire post here:

    • goldenprez

       MaMcGriz … This is exactly what I have been talking about.

      It is now imperative that we fight fire with fire. The grassroots conservatives must get to the tens of millions who do not frequent internet sites. We must start to spitball ideas that will reach these people through the mediums with which they are familiar. The most important of which, I believe, is television.

      The second most important would be newspapers. There is no competing yellow journalism right wing newspaper anywhere in the U.S. I have already outlined elsewhere how competing tabloid newspapers can be started that will counter the Ministry of Propaganda on its own turf.

      I have also laid out a number of ideas for television shows that will also help neutralize the Ministry of Propaganda.

      It is time to stop decrying the Ministry of Propaganda and get involved to start to neutralize them. Time to start generating ideas that will be helpful to grassroots/patriot organizations nationwide.

      I believe, as sure as we are breathing, that Mrs. Palin and her team are already "steady on the case," because they know that this is the most important aspect for Mrs. Palin to make a successful run for the Presidency.

      As I have written a number of times previously, I would love to hear the ideas that our fellow Palin supporters have in this regard.

      Throw them all out! The status quo must go!

      Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

      Illegitimi non carborundum.

      Barracudas Maximus.

    • CBDenver

      The eight commandment says "Thou shalt not steal".   The ninth says "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor".  I believe these two are paired because the ninth (bearing false witness) is a form of the eight (stealing).  Telling lies about people steals their good reputation.  It is a theft of the image of that person that is substituted for a false one.  The media are guilty of theft when they bear false witness against others in their publications.

  • Lemuel Vargas

    And how could we counter these left wing memes? By doing the envelopment maneuver of attacking which means you attack the weak points of their arguments by giving counter arguments every time they go on the attack,and once their attack got derailed, we then attack their main arguments and if they try to counter attack, we go for the kill by giving counter arguments (the anvil of the maneuver) while attacking their main points (the hammer) as well.

    So to summarize:

    1. Attack their weak points by giving counter arguments

    2.Once their attack gets derailed:
        a.Attack their main arguments (the hammer)
        b.Give counter arguments (the anvil) ad infinitum..

    And hopefully, their memes would be torn to shreds as time goes by..

    So what do you think? Doable or not?


  • generictrainee

    Palin is not an ordinary public figure , she needs very skilled propaganda warriors. Evil never sleeps.

    • AmazedOne1

      Sarah DOES have a VERY skilled warrior. RAM, who started this site Conservatives4Palin, is now on Sarah’s payroll and at her side doing this sort of battle.

  • patnatasha

    politico needs to go out of business like today.

  • wodiej

    With crap like this, it’s no wonder Gov. Palin does not want to run for political office.  Her life would be in danger daily.

    • Quiet_Righty

      Bite your tongue!

  • generictrainee

    I think she can sue them for libel on this.

    • AmazedOne1

      I heartily agree that it would be GREAT to be able to appeal to the law for relief from this sort of horrible accusations. However, the libel laws are difficult to utilize, especially for a public figure like Sarah. Here’s an article that explains it:
      It is not unusual for attorneys to receive inquiries about defamation actions from people who are in conflicts with neighbors or other members of their communities, and have become the subjects of vicious lies. The area of law most implicated by that type of conduct is "defamation of character", a cause of action which is generally defined to include "libel" and slander".What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
      2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
      3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
      4. Damage to the plaintiff.In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:Attacks on a person’s professional character or standing;
      Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
      Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
      Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context – that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.Public FiguresUnder the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show’s advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta’s status as a "limited public figure".Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good IdeaWhile people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

      • $35927229

        The arguments made against commencing a defamation action are weak and ridiculous.  Good thing Sarah won’t take advice from ""

        She can destroy Politico – if she wants to.

        • AmazedOne1

          I’m sure she’s taking advice from her lawyer. Sarah has not sued. I take that as his answer regarding the outcome of a lawsuit.

          • $35927229

            I take that as we don’t know what she is planning regarding the whole issue.  Even if she doesn’t sue it doesn’t mean it is because she or her lawyer fear a negative outcome.  There may be other considerations.

            Bottomline – We just don’t know.

            I repeat – she can destroy Politico if she wants to.

            PS: I just noticed that Politico has corrected their article. I take that as their lawyers’ advice that they are in deep doo doo over this one.

            • AmazedOne1

              Now, she has no grounds to sue on.

              • $35927229

                Are you now agreeing that before the correction she had grounds to sue on?

                Have a nice day.

                • AmazedOne1

                  I never said she didn’t have grounds, did I? What I said is that every time a bad article is written (and it’s often!) people here say "She should sue." Yet, they don’t realize that it’s a ridiculous comment because the law makes it very difficult.

                  However, they don’t bother to read about the law. If it were as easy as they seem to think, then Sarah’s lawyer would deal with it that way. He hasn’t.

                  • $35927229


                  • $35927229

                    My point was that this specific case would be an easy one to make and win. And that we don’t know what Sarah and her lawyers were discussing re this specific issue.

                    But Politico realized that legally they screwed up big time and corrected their reporting, so for now we can move on.

  • Guest

    Thank you Steve, excellent post !

    It’s wonderful to know that the Governor is STILL the one they fear the most. Odd isn’t it that there aren’t any articles written like this about pudgy little Jebbie or the opportunistic, balding, gutless wonder Rubio.

    • Joy Daniels Brower

      Glad someone else is becoming a bit weary about the GOPe’S fawning over Rubio and trying to make him "next in line" (or, "It’s his turn") to FAIL!!  I think Palin will first mount a conservative challenge on every possible By-Election front in 2014; then collect chits from her winning endorsements for her successful run in 2016.

  • $35927229


  • Jon Kelly

    ENOUGH OF THIS!!! The one thing that Sarah Palin teaches is that we are not victims. Liberals don’t pick on us—- WE PICK ON THEM. The Old Republican Establishment spends all their time trying to get liberals to like them We PALINISTS and whomever else wish to join our revolution dish out political punishment not take it. 

    • Joy Daniels Brower

      Yes, indeedee!!  It’s time that we played hardball and took no prisoners!  We need to draw that line in the sand and call out anyone who crosses it to the enemy’s side!  Make friends & family take a stand!  "I’ve made my choice!  Have YOU?!?"

  • misterlogic0013

    yes they do, awareness is a major part of the answer, courage another, these are solutions, snow tiers weather the snow storms ..  facts win the day / solutions are the cures, lord knows we need many. Cream always comes to the top / Sarah Palin ..  Jim surfaced .. movement, things are changing .. question, how long can the crazies hang on ? with present GOP leadership, answer scary .. personal responsibility key .. GOP should be held accountable, and will with the voters. News Flash / We are in Sarah time .. accountability premium .. 2014 is it here yet ?

  • Quiet_Righty

    I’m all for more truth. Let’s stop with the spin about Hillary’s "concussion." We all know what "stomach flu" is. It’s Montezuma’s revenge.

  • Carol Cumbie

    The left have been allowed to say what they want. They right are vilified if they say anything. The problem is the left have to many places where they are able to speak there garbage.

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets