More furious hair-splitting by the left.
The latest news flash from the Washington Post, condensed for your reading pleasure:
Some people are claiming that Sarah Palin SOLD an unneeded plane on E-Bay!
But she DIDN'T!!!!
Gotcha!
You can't believe ANY good thing about Sarah Palin!!!
P.S. - Oh, by the way, Sarah Palin DID list the plane on E-Bay first -- but the attempted sale fell through -- SO -- when Sarah Palin said she put the plane on E-Bay in her convention speech, she was 100% accurate.
BUT -- some other people in the campaign assumed the plane also "sold" on E-Bay, so we've now turned their mistaken assumption into a pseudo-gotcha! Ain't we impressive?
And look at how carefully the WAPO has to thread the needle to make its story work -- because if it said that Sarah Palin falsely claimed to have sold the plane on E-Bay, it would be lying. So instead it very, very carefully chooses its words to create a something out of a nothing. From the WaPo:
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. [Note the strangely evasive wording -- why start with a second-hand anecdote about Palin told by other people and not widely reported, rather than starting with what Palin herself told the entire nation in her widely watched televised speech this week?]
But in fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. [Did Palin says it "SOLD" on E-bay? No. WAPO is hiding the ball on that. It might get there in a few more pararaphs -- by which time many may not even be reading anymore, WAPO knows.] 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. [Is WAPO implying that the used jet shoudl not have depreciated, but should have instead sold for its original purchase price?]
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. Reynolds made campaign contributions to both Palin and Harris in 2006 and 2007. [Just what are you implying, WAPO? That the plane was a GIFT to a campaign contributor? But why no discussion of the fair market value of the jet at the time of sale, then? Wouldn't that be relevant?]
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. [So, after trying to sell the plane for 8 months, maybe that $2.1 million final resale price was about right, huh?]
But that hasn't stopped Palin, or John McCain, from implying -- and, on Friday, claiming outright -- that Palin did sell the jet on the Internet.
"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!" McCain declared in Wisconsin at a campaign stop on Friday. It could not be immediately determined what that profit was.
The video tribute to Palin that aired at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night made the same claim. "She signed sweeping ethics reform legislation, auctioned the governor's jet on eBay," the narrator said, citing it in a list of Palin's achievements.
Palin has been more cautious in her comments. Rather than claiming she sold it on eBay, she gave in her convention remarks a description that was true but, nonetheless, still left the impression she had sold the jet online. "That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay," Palin said.
In other words, Sarah Palin TOLD THE TRUTH. She did "put it on Ebay." Why isn't that the lead to the story? Why is this fact buried so many paragraphs down?
WAPO tries to make hay out of the fact that John McCain and the entire Republican party haven't yet scrupulously learned and parsed every nitpicking detail of Palin's life story with the attention to detail of constipated law professors.
By the way, who gives a flying leap if the plane SOLD on E-bay or was only LISTED on E-bay? The point of the story isn't HOW the plane sold. The point of the story is that SARAH PALIN CUT WASTEFUL SPENDING AND IS NOT A PRETENTIOUS, SELF-AGGRANDIZING POLITICIAN IN THE TYPICAL MOLD.
But apparently missing the whole point of a story in pursuit of attempted character assassination IS the whole point, for the Washington Post.
Update 1: I know where the left will go next: But she sold it the plane to a campaign contributor! However, there's no evidence that the plane was sold for less than fair market value or without proper approvals, and the sale was public knowledge at the time. The plane had been listed for many months and hadn't sold, so there's simply no basis for implying that the plane should have sold at anything approximating the original purchase price. Who bought the plane is irrelevant is if there's no evidence of self-dealing -- and there is none. This is just a classic, empty-handed smear.
Update 2: As usual, the leftist blogosphere jumps onboard the Smear Train with posts titled like this: CAN THEY TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT ANYF**KINGTHING?. Wow, thinly-disguised profanity and completely undisguised ignorance meet once again. But"Can They Tell the Truth About Anything?" IS a good question. I've been wondering the same about the left. The answer seems to be no. It's nonstop smears on Palin, 24/7, with regard for what's truth and what's trash.
Comments