Shannyn Moore: Sarah Palin is a Coward and a Bully
The following is a prepared statement by Alaska blogger Shannyn Moore, threatened with legal action by Sarah Palin for reporting allegations of impending federal corruption charges against Palin. The statement was delivered by Moore in front of Palin's Anchorage office July 5, before reporters and news cameras (see Mudflats, Shannyn Moore, KTUU, Huffington Post):
"On the Fourth of July, when Americans everywhere were celebrating our most sacred national holiday with parades and barbeques, Governor Sarah Palin was busy having me, Shannyn Moore, declared an Enemy of the State.
"In a rambling quasi-legal letter, the most powerful person in this state accused me of defaming her for pointing out the fact that there have been rumors, -rumors- of corruption, rumors that have been around for years.
"When Sarah Palin gave her three-weeks notice to the people of Alaska, aborting her term as Governor, a lot of people wondered why she quit. Mid-level managers turn-in their notice, not elected public officials. It didn't make sense. It still doesn't. People have been trying to guess why she really quit, and everyone in Alaska has been playing the guessing game. They're rumors. There are a lot of rumors. And with all the corruption we've had here in Alaska, of course we wonder what's really behind her resignation.
"Governors don't just quit. But Governor Palin did.
"The governor's massive overreaction -on the Fourth of July no less- should make any reasonable person wonder what's wrong with her. The Lady protests way too much. Eventually we'll all find out why she really walked off the job.
"Sarah Palin is a coward and a bully. What kind of politician attacks an ordinary American on the Fourth of July for speaking her mind? What's wrong with her? The First Amendment was designed to protect people like me from the likes of people like her. Our American Revolution got rid of kings. And queens, too. Am I jacked-up? You betcha.
"Sarah Palin, if you have a problem with me, then sue me. Shannyn Moore will not be muzzled!"
Go, Shannyn! I look forward to seeing you on Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow Monday night!
(photo: Mudflats)
Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com
Can't wait to see her on Keith's and Rachel's shows tonight. Love that book cover!
Thanks, Mark.
July 6, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Food for Thought:
If the need arises, who will have the larger defense fund, Shannon or Sarah?
July 6, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is only one way to face down a bully and that is toface him down, or her, also.
Go Shannyn!!!
July 6, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a reason why Palin quit. Something is going on, that's for sure. The truth will come out. And in only 3 weeks? Something is definitely amidst.
July 6, 2009 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah's being upstaged by Sanford & Ensign lately
& a few other ticking timebombs, so Mrs. Barracuda goes on the offensive. It has worked, she is totally offensive.
July 6, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine, just for a moment, if she had become vice president. Would she have resigned that office because of criticism from big ol' meanies like Shannyn Moore?
July 6, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shannyn is obviously smart enough to not be threatened by this goobledygook.
Palin is a clown, and we should not be giving her this much space on TPM.
July 6, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and Letterman ought to take his apology back!
July 6, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay. Thanks for clearing all this up. Now can we move on? Ms. Palin has hijacked the national conversation long enough.
July 6, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps if the news columnists keep propping up baseless rumors, they should be sued? INcluding Rush, Drudge, Judith Miller, whomever?
How many false rumors about Obama, Hillary, John Kerry, Al Gore were bandied about by the supposedly impartial professional media corps?
Just because they're attacking someone you dislike doesn't make them right. Character assassination should be punished. You have the right to free speech, but as a reporter or columnist you don't have the right to deliberate falsehoods to destroy a reputation, even when hiding behind "other people say" cowardly phrasing. Whether Shannyn Moore engaged in this, I don't know, but liberals won't be anywhere curious enough to ask. After all, she's attacking a Palin. Morals and principles are relative, based on party affiliation.
July 6, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have the right to free speech, but as a reporter or columnist you don't have the right to deliberate falsehoods to destroy a reputation, even when hiding behind "other people say" cowardly phrasing.
Actually, you do have that right. At least, you used to, prior to the Bush/Obama administration. Not sure any more.
July 6, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you do not have the right to engage in libel and slander. Period. That the bar to prove it for public figures is undoubtedly higher is true. But if you publish a known falsehood, you can be sued, even if you're the so-called "free press".
July 7, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero is right, Tankard is wrong. Moore is about to get her ass kicked in court and she better start talking to a lawyer and stop wasting her time giving press conferences. The First Amendment does not give people the right to publish destructive rumors. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a freakin' idiot.
Palin has a right to defend her reputation in court, and since Moore's writings are published and disseminated widely (as proven by this blog), Moore will likely lose in court. She has no defense because she can't back up her allegations. She even said she can't. What a moron!
Moore is clearly a bigger fool than Palin. And that's not a rumor, it's a fact!
July 7, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Though if you look at her blog, all the commenters just love her. You'd think it was David v. Goliath in a full court press.
Funny those shoes that didn't fit us in October seem to go well with our outfits this summer.
July 7, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, this is not only incorrect, it does not address the First Amendment issue that I raise.
July 7, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What First Amendment issue did you raise? That "the press" (or anyone else) has a right to deliberate falsehoods to destroy a reputation? I don't see where the First Amendment says that. There are in fact legal parameters to the right to free speech, most of which were litigated long before George W. Bush held office.
July 8, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you can be sued, if the plaintiff can prove that your allegations were untrue AND that you lied with the intent to damage.
However, you cannot be arrested for doing it.
July 7, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Yes, you can be sued" is all that matters.
July 8, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't pretend to be dense. The First Amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." For two hundred years, the Supreme Court firmly established that this was pretty much carte blanche freedom where it comes to political speech. Of course, if you harm someone with slander or libel, you may be subject to civil penalties, but no one can threaten you with criminal action.
Nowadays, few care much about the First Amendment. Hell, few care much about habeas corpus. So you may well be right. Pres. Obama's Justice Department may be the first to throw people in jail for speaking their minds.
July 8, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It comes down to the fact that she states the "rumors of..." when discussing this. In other words, the reader is informed that the reporter has no evidence. The moment when we have to be so handholding regarding the press because the American reader cannot think for him or herself, is moment we should just throw in the freakin towel.
July 6, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Of course the public has trouble discerning facts from innuendo, and that's why Bush got elected in 2000 and why we went to war in 2003. Throw in the towel? Well, no, maybe we should fight back with ethics and morals and some bigass lawsuits against the press that enables this madness. Our "friends" at the NY Times, Washington Post, and other "liberal" outlets are as much of the problem as conservative outlets. Always looking for "balanced reporting" (which Glenn Greenwald accurately describes as "transcribing" or taking down spin with no qualifications or analysis and passing it to the reader as "reporting", no attempt to discern whether one side is, uh, actually right?
July 7, 2009 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I too am tiring of the Palin phenomenon. Too much coverage for too small a person. I hope she is gone for good and that this sudden resigning is the result of bad behavior on her part. Only that will just cause more coverage - woe is me.
July 6, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Shannyn was wrong. The FBI released a statement saying Palin was (emphatically) not under investigation. So Shannyn's statements probably were actionable, and Palin's "threat" valid.
Now, I am not ever going to be a Sarah Palin voter - in any context - but while I'm not interested in seeing her run for national office, I'm a bit mystified by the hatred she engenders. She has always seemed to be a good and decent person, whatever her politics.
July 6, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy.
July 6, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double Oy
July 6, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we get a triple play?
;)
July 6, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, oy, oy!
I guess he's talking about the same person who accused our, now President of "Pallin' around with terrorists." Decent person?
The same one who made sure as mayor, that Wasilla rape victims had to pay for evidence kits used in the ER. Good person?
The one who got an exorcism from a nut-case who drove a woman out of her town in Africa because he convinced everyone she was a witch -- talk about pallin' around with terroritsts! Good and decent person?
Glad I have a higher bar for what is good and decent.
July 6, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
oy oy oy oy oy!!!!
Yeah, you come outta nowhere to the RNC and spend a half-hour talking trash like you're the sh*t? That nice person? The brave and strong person, now whining because people are saying mean things about her person? The cut-and-run person who just abandoned the people of Alaska who she was elected to represent, that nice person?
oy oy oy oy oy!!!!
July 6, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
William Ayers was a terrorist. Obama worked with him on several boards, and his explanations of his relationship were inaccurate, drawing more attention than a simple factual answer might have. Just as W's pretending not to know Kenny Lay fell short of accuracy, Obama's pretending not to know Ayers very well rang hollow in light of various interactions.
Menachem Begin planted bombs and became Prime Minister - doesn't make him less a terrorist. "Pallin' around with terrorists" may be unpalatable to you, but it is not far from fact. Oddly, the conclusion the left seems to have drawn from this campaign episode is either Ayers wasn't really a terrorist or that his terrorism was for a good cause, or in perverse circumstances, a fusion of both at the same time.
July 6, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, I sincerely hope you know that by the time Obama had any dealings with William Ayers, he was a community volunteer whose focus was on education, and in fact:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers]Palin's comments would have had some credibility if Obama had "palled around" with him in the 60's. But he didn't. He served on some committees, and attended a coffee-launch at Ayer's house (a neighbor after all), during the years that Ayers was working -- NOT AS A TERRORIST, but as a community activist.
Say what you want to continue to defend her misbegotten self, but there is no defense of this accusation she made about Obama/Ayers.
Considering her husband's leanings, regarding having Alaska secede from the United States, one would think she would be a little smarter, but the fact is that she isn't smart; she is impulsive and she is used to using her looks to sway the rest of the cheerleaders to go against the one she doesn't like. Not a very good quality in a "leader."
July 6, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, did I forget to mention that Ayers was NEVER convicted of anything?
July 6, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on Cville. The election is over, you don't have to defend Ayers anymore. I doubt if the story was exactly the same, except that Ayers bombed abortion clinics, you would be defending him.
July 6, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not talking about the election. I am talking about Sarah Palin, (the subject here) who Desidero was defending on completely false points. I happen to think that if she is a "good, decent" example for us all to follow, then I just want to make it clear that she is neither, unless you consider liars good and decent.
Ayers bombed abortion clinics? Why are you making stuff up?
July 6, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its a hypothetical. If Ayers was a right winger who bombed abortion clinics but every other part of the story was the same. i.e. never caught killing anyone, got off on a technicality, admitted his guilt, said, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird. America is a great country." Had his father buy him a position in some major cities hierarchy. If the building bombed was the only difference between this hypothetical right winger and Ayers I doubt you would be defending the abortion clinic bomber. So why do you go to such extremes to defend this bomber of government, military, and police buildings?
July 6, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My entire point was that Obama's work with this man was in committees that were endeavoring to help educational progress in Chicago. Their entire professional experience together was in that realm, and had nothing to do with "terrorism," which I have said before, Ayers was never convicted of on any charges at all.
So to say that he was "palling around with terrorists" was at the very least disingenuous, and certainly inflammatory, as are your lame attempts at hypotheticals.
July 6, 2009 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think my hypotheticals are lame or that it is in any way meaningful that Ayers wasn't convicted than you don't know much about the Ayers story. He admitted he was guilty and only got off because of an illegal wire tap used in the attempt to catch him while he was on the run. I suggest you do some research.
July 6, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ho, hum. One last time. When Obama worked with Ayers, it was as two professionals in the 90's, working to get Chicago schools on track. If the multiple professional organizations that recognized Ayers' ability to contribute, why shouldn't Barack Obama?
Yes, Ayers admitted he participated, and his adult life since then has been one of community activism and volunteering. Some might call that redemption, but for me it is neither here nor there. The only terrorists that Obama palled around with, as far as I'm concerned, are those he had to consort with in order to take office in January: George Bush and Dick Cheney!
July 6, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so Palin should have said, "Pallin' around with ex-terrorists"? Fine.
July 7, 2009 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK - so instead of saying "palling around with terrorists" she should have just said "spent time serving on boards with people who year earlier bombed the Pentagon and recently showed little remorse for doing so". See, if she had said this instead, it would have made Obama's judgment seem so much better.
July 6, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
OJ Simpson was never convicted of anything either.
July 6, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only terrorists that Obama palled around with, as far as I'm concerned, are those he had to consort with in order to take office in January: George Bush and Dick Cheney!
------------------------------------------------
Of course. Bush and Cheney are terrorists because you say so but not Ayers because he wasn't convicted. I'm astounded by the intellectual rigor of you comments.
I couldn't care less that Ayers wasn't convicted. I have a problem with criminals going free due to police misconduct. The US is the only nation that does this. Canada, England, all other countries weigh the level of police misconduct with the gravity of the crime and the power of the evidence. Convicted or not Ayers is a self confessed terrorist.
The fact that Ayers had a rich and powerful father who was able to buy him a place in Chicago also doesn't redeem him in my mind. That's just another story of ethically challenged politicians and rich elites carving out preferential places for themselves and their kin. Had he been the son of any average American it never would have happened.
I certainly wouldn't expect a young politician in Obama's position to take an ethical stand contrary to the corrupt Chicago machine. He had to play the game as it was played in Chicago so I don't condemn him for that. But you certainly wouldn't see me defending Ayers as you have.
I thought you were defending Ayers because you were still stuck in campaign mode. Clearly that's not the case. Apparently you're one of those liberals who has different standards for left wing bombers and right wing bombers. Even though I am a left wing liberal I've never understood the attraction to or defense of left wing terrorists by some of the liberal community. I see bombing buildings as terrorism whether its done to protest a war, protest abortions, or protest anything.
July 6, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make absolutely not one whit if sense. But I understand that it is the best you can do.
July 6, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad you have trouble with rational dialog. You're not only ignorant but you can be a real asshole too can't ya.
July 6, 2009 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes -- Oy, oy, oy.
And, also, love your new avatar.
July 6, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero and El Presidente, you're stating things as facts that are not. EP, by your comments it's clear you didn't bother to read Shannyn's blog. She and HuffPo both clearly stated that they were talking about rumors. Neither of them stated that it was a "fact" that Ms. Palin was being investigated by the FBI for corruption. Speculating about someone's reasons for quitting is not "actionable", even if Sarah doesn't like the speculation. Desidero, you are wrong about William Ayers and Obama; nice try at deflecting, though.
Whether those of you who are tired of Sarah like it or not, with her bizarre actions she's bound to stay in the news for some time to come.
July 6, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A voice from the past:
"ALIN: When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or you know maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, “Man that doesn’t do us any good — women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country.” I don’t think it bodes well for her, a statement like that. Because, again, fair or unfair, it is there, I think that’s reality, and I think it’s a given. I think people can just accept that she is going to be under the sharper microscope. So be it. I mean, work harder, prove yourself to an even greater degree that you’re capable, that you’re going to be the best candidate, and that of course is what she wants us to believe at this point."
http://thinkprogress.org/
July 6, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, this is Sarah, criticizing Hillary for not being tough enough. Desidero -- you must be really torn now!
July 6, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I forgot about that little diddy of hers. For the time being, Palin is a force within the Repub party and the far right conservatives (although she stands no chance at being a serious contender in 2012). Understanding Palin and her appeal is to understand a quarter of the voting block in this country. For that reason it is fascinating to watch. And then to watch the Repubs flail about when it comes to dealling with her: Just saw Rove attack her stepping down, leaving OReiley nearly speechless. For purely selfish political reason, here's to Palin staying in the limelight for years to come.
July 6, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's play back the whole quote:
Note that Palin is talking about "perceived whine", she seems to be moderating her criticism quite a bit, and seems to be talking female political strategy in terms of political reality, not what's right and just. And I think she's accurate. Hillary did not win any points with her "get Obama a pillow" comment, nor any complaint about sexist treatment from Chris Matthews. She won points through a spontaneous expression of emotion, and through defending her daughter. Palin is noting what Hillary gets "on so many fronts", and is just explaining that women defending themselves against these kind of personal & sexist attacks just enhances the "perceived whine" and in no way has the desired effect, however justified it is to defend yourself. I'm sure Palin can offer deeper insight into this issue now. The press loves attacking unfairly, and the press loves piling on those who have the audacity to defend themselves.
July 7, 2009 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oy, oy, oy, oy!!!
palin tries to portray herself as a smart, savvy, political leader/all-around mom when she is, in reality, an unstable, self-centered moron.
As far as Shannyn Moore being wrong, that's inaccurate. Moore reported about the rumors (as she said, they've been swirling for some time). She never said "The FBI is investigating palin", she said that there are numerous rumors that the feds are investigating her.
July 6, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty sure the point was Alaska. In order for Alaska to progress she would have to get out of the way of Alaska. Alaskans deserve more & need a lame duck like they need a lame moose. Alaskans know whats good for Alaska & it ain't no bloodsucker of the Alaskan tax dollar, Hell no!!
Also, her families four votes weighed much heavier (for Alaska) than the know nothing Alaskans that knew nothing & voted for her. What were they thinking? Did they too have lower 48 fever? BTW, what are the other two called??
Dead fish don't swim & lame ducks are caught sliding into third, that's why she has to lateral to her blocking back in order to save the World Cup!! RIGHT?! An easy analogy, especially if your a dog sled racer & not an ignorant socialist terror lovin' well educated popular President.
I'm just speculatin' here, but do you think that if the voters of Alaska had a voters chance, they would have voted C-YA Sarah out bigger than they voted her in!?
July 7, 2009 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink