Sarah Palin's public pronouncements have now reached an amazing point -- where even Fox News is fact-checking her.
As Fox News anchor Bret Baier noted this evening, picking up on a Politico report, Palin said this past Friday that there had been a lot of "change" of late, and talked about the dollar coin -- how the phrase "In God We Trust" had been moved to the rim of the coin, rather than on the face. "Who makes a decision like that?" said Palin, seemingly pointing to the Obama administration, adding: "It's a disturbing trend."
However, the coins were in fact commissioned in 2005 by the Republican-led government of the time. And as Baier adds, Congress acted specifically to change this in 2007, and Fox displayed a James K. Polk presidential coin with the phrase on the coin's face.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

jeffgee
November 10, 2009 7:09 PM
Delusional. She's really grasping at straws now. Next she'll complain about the "gotcha" media again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neesy08
November 11, 2009 10:25 AM in reply to jeffgee
she is taking pointes from orly taitz.i cannot believe people are willing to pay to hear her speak.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kash79
November 10, 2009 7:10 PM
OMFG!!!!
I saw a woman puke into a paper bag on my way to school today and she sounded a far more pleasant and comprehensible than Palin. This story has jokes written all over it, and million them.
See below for a few. Ha!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 10, 2009 7:10 PM
Can't resist having a caption contest for this one:
PALIN NOT PLEASED WITH RIM JOB
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sheerahkahn
November 10, 2009 7:25 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
You owe me a new keyboard and monitor for that...going to take forever to get my
drink off from it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 10, 2009 7:40 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
PALIN: I WANT IT ON THE FACE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
November 11, 2009 3:40 AM in reply to tiowally
PALIN: I MAY SPIT BUT I NEVER SWALLOW.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GBHeron
November 11, 2009 4:46 PM in reply to tiowally
PALIN: FOR A DOLLAR IT GOES ON THE FACE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
November 10, 2009 7:46 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Rimjob deserves rimshot: http://www.instantrimshot.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
November 11, 2009 1:08 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
You guys are TOO funny! I mean it! I just woke my wife up laughing!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Uncle Chad
November 11, 2009 10:08 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Awesome captions. Ha!
Do either of these work?
CENTRIST PALIN DECRIES OBAMA SHIFT TO FRINGES
or
PALIN BEMOANS OBAMA'S GODLESS CENTRISM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 11, 2009 12:07 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Hah, can't get enough. Here's another:
PALIN PREFERS A POLK IN THE FACE
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rambler american
November 11, 2009 6:00 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
To coin a phrase.
heh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 10, 2009 7:11 PM
Once Sarah has stated her idiotic comments, her non-thinking followers will never realize that she was wrong. Even Fox is secondary to her one-celled fans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
November 11, 2009 4:21 AM in reply to CVille Dem
Of course. For the few who will actually even relate to the chronology, it means only: Did libruls/al qaeda infiltrate Cheney's team??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jchaus
November 10, 2009 7:14 PM
Like this merits attention? On Politico? On Fox?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pv2k
November 10, 2009 7:17 PM
This is just a Faux News ruse to get their viewers to believe the are in fair and balanced. And they will need all the viewers they can get their hands on because times are changing. Fox Noise is about to be Gooooogled.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 10, 2009 7:33 PM in reply to pv2k
Goooooogled? What do you mean?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
November 10, 2009 7:19 PM
Who does decide that, anyway? The Treasury, I guess? And, over all, why does it matter? I mean, I could see it potentially mattering if it was removed totally, but...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 10, 2009 7:36 PM in reply to Kuyleh
Republicans in the Bush administration did it. Senator Byrd(D) changed it back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Will work for shoes
November 10, 2009 7:49 PM in reply to tonnyb
FWIW, I read somewhere that it was Brownback and Byrd in a bipartisan effort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 10, 2009 8:18 PM in reply to Will work for shoes
Are those Palin's shoes.:)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Will work for shoes
November 10, 2009 9:03 PM in reply to Will work for shoes
Uh, no. The only thing the former governor and I share is the fact that we both have a uterus. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 11, 2009 3:44 AM in reply to Will work for shoes
But not the same uterus, I assume.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 11, 2009 8:10 AM in reply to JNagarya
I was wondering how that would work. ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Will work for shoes
November 11, 2009 10:52 AM in reply to JNagarya
Eeeewwwwwww!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Buck
November 10, 2009 7:25 PM
Well, I'm not so sure. Traditionally, the Republican party has been run by the money guys, using the wingnuts as footsoldiers. But now the wingnuts want to run the asylum. Old-time pols like Gingrich are being shoved aside. Once Palin's schtick starts to cut into profits, Fox might push back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 11, 2009 3:45 AM in reply to Joe Buck
Gingrich may be down but he;'s not out: now he's touting his being a Christian.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
moodypeterg
November 10, 2009 7:28 PM
The only real question here is why is James K. Polk on a coin? And why do we have to use his middle initial?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fightin' Dems Against Obama's Surrender
November 10, 2009 7:33 PM in reply to moodypeterg
James K. Polk High School is where Al Bundy played high school football. I'd say that merits a coin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Publishermike
November 10, 2009 10:01 PM in reply to moodypeterg
In 1844, the Democrats were split
The three nominees for the presidential candidate
Were Martin Van Buren, a former president and an abolitionist
James Buchanan, a moderate
Louis Cass, a general and expansionist
From Nashville came a dark horse riding up
He was James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump
Austere, severe, he held few people dear
His oratory filled his foes with fear
The factions soon agreed
He's just the man we need
To bring about victory
Fulfill our manifest destiny
And annex the land the Mexicans command
And when the votes were cast the winner was
Mister James K. Polk, Napoleon of the Stump
In four short years he met his every goal
He seized the whole southwest from Mexico
Made sure the tarriffs fell
And made the English sell the Oregon territory
He built an independent treasury
Having done all this he sought no second term
But precious few have mourned the passing of
Mister James K. Polk, our eleventh president
Young Hickory, Napoleon of the Stump
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Publishermike
November 10, 2009 10:02 PM in reply to Publishermike
Courtesy of They Might Be Giants
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 11, 2009 3:07 AM in reply to Publishermike
Jim Polk sounds faintly dirty as in "what did jim poke". Now James K. Polk sounds pretty majestic as in "James K. Polk launched an unprovoked war on Mexico AND set the stage for the Civil War".
The 'K' like the 'W' makes all the difference. It makes warmongers sound like statesmen.
(Plus bonus Men in Black reference.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SOS ICEBERG
November 11, 2009 4:58 PM in reply to Publishermike
put your hand inside the puppethead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 10, 2009 7:31 PM
Or maybe Fox News is becoming more ... "Fair and Balanced?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
November 10, 2009 8:09 PM in reply to tonnyb
That's a joke right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 10, 2009 8:27 PM in reply to BeeClone
Well yes and no. Maybe the recent WH criticism, combined with the shameful manner in which they spent election night assuredly predicting a palinized win in NY 23, and the subsequent "egg of their faces," with the democratic win, has made them think twice about their support of Palin. Its hard to believe that their viewers weren't upset with them that night.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 10, 2009 8:34 PM in reply to BeeClone
They got burnt by Palin. Here the consequence. Now she gets fact checked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
November 10, 2009 10:32 PM in reply to tonnyb
Fair and balanced would imply evolution is at work. If that's the case, the wing-nuts won't have a source of miss-information to feed upon. They'll be Lost in Reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
George C
November 11, 2009 2:46 PM in reply to Beetlejuice
Fair and balanced? Check out Jon Stewart's piece last night, in which his research team noted that Sean Hannity's video last Thursday of the Bachmann Tea Party at the Capitol included (without elaboration) clips of Beck's Sept 12 demonstration. Because Beck's thing had more people than Bachmann's, the clear intent was to make the latter appear better attended than it actually was. Hmph.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
November 10, 2009 7:32 PM
I can't decide what the appeal is: car wreck rubbernecking?
No, I've decided that people perk up when Palin speaks, just like I always perked up at the circus when the clowns came in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
November 11, 2009 3:13 AM in reply to billpaustin
Many children are scared almost witless by clowns. Which is how I react to Palin. I guess it is a second childhood.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
November 10, 2009 7:32 PM
Lame attempt by Fox to say "See we're not the Republican Propaganda Wing".
And I like the idea of the writing on the edge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
November 11, 2009 12:12 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
I believe this makes them much more difficult to counterfeit. You can't just stamp them out like a regular coin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 11, 2009 2:17 AM in reply to midnight rambler
They do still have edge writing, it's just that instead of "In God We Trust," it has "E Pluribus Unum," the mint mark, and the year the coin was made.
That they have no problem with seeing the original national motto relegated to the edge of the coin mean that Palin & Co. care a lot more about religiosity than national unity? (Why am I even asking that question?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rambler american
November 11, 2009 6:04 PM in reply to midnight rambler
Why would anyone bother to counterfeit a dollar?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
November 10, 2009 7:33 PM
I think it's Faux's way of standing by their candidate of choice, Mike Huckabee.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dogger
November 10, 2009 11:28 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Most sensible theory so far.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
realist
November 10, 2009 7:33 PM
In whose god do we trust? Trust to what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 10, 2009 7:39 PM in reply to realist
Trust to put Palin in the White House. See, it really doesn't matter how much Palin knows. What matters is that she's a Christian and has a direct communication to God. He will guide her. He will speak to her and through her run the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 11, 2009 3:49 AM in reply to tonnyb
And then quit after 18 months.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
millebornes
November 10, 2009 7:39 PM
Chicken or egg? If those of us on the left ignore Sarah will she go away? I keep thinking the reason why the tea bagger wing-nuts love her is because she drives us crazy. What if we stopped talking, thinking and writing about her? Maybe she'd go away. Could that work?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
November 10, 2009 8:16 PM in reply to millebornes
Why would we want her to go away? I for one want her as the leader of the wingnuts. Go Sarah!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truthspeaker
November 11, 2009 6:06 AM in reply to millebornes
Doing so would also serve to elevate the discussions on this blog. As hard as it is to have a discussion with a religious wingnut, its equally as hard to spend my morning reading about Palin and Fox.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
billpaustin
November 10, 2009 7:43 PM
"Chicken or egg? If those of us on the left ignore Sarah will she go away? I keep thinking the reason why the tea bagger wing-nuts love her is because she drives us crazy. What if we stopped talking, thinking and writing about her? Maybe she'd go away. Could that work?"
First -- the chicken is just the egg's way of having another egg
Second -- let's keep Sarah around! The point is to not respond TO her, but do pay attention. Same goes for all the ditto-haters.
If the shark bites, don't bleed. But don't ignore the shark.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
November 10, 2009 7:47 PM in reply to billpaustin
Plus, they make great material for the late night shows. I want my comedy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
November 10, 2009 7:43 PM
Rimjob deserves rimshot: http://www.instantrimshot.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
November 10, 2009 7:45 PM in reply to DaddyD
That was for ohyeathatsright: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 7:10 PM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The One True b!X
November 10, 2009 7:49 PM
What I love about this is that it shows not only that she's an idiot but that she's lazy. It would have taken her, what, maybe two minutes tops on Google to find who made the coin decision(s) before spouting off about it. But it simply never occurs to her that anything she thinks might be incorrect, so why bother.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nowhereman
November 11, 2009 1:16 AM in reply to The One True b!X
Exactly so. It just doesn't occur to the Arctic Pox that she could be wrong or needs to fact-check beyond her own defined reality. Only a small minority of people have this kind of psychological issue. Thing is, these folks tend to be quite magnetic personally and divisive at the same time, capable of assuming positions of power for a limited timespan. For such narcissists, their need for adulation gets fed but all the while there churns a deeper defect in self-perception. People like SP could be New Agers or Tea Baggers--it doesn't really matter. It's just that at a certain point in their skewed lives, they latched onto The One True Thing for them that feeds their needs, self-destructive though they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 11, 2009 2:21 AM in reply to nowhereman
You guys are assuming that she cares whether or not she is right. I don't think she does; I think she only cares about getting shots off at the opposition (Democrats, impure Republicans). As long as you take a shot, who cares if it's actually true?
Sarah Barracuda learned well from Karl Rove.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 11, 2009 3:54 AM in reply to slb
Exactly.
And she gets credulous adulation out of it from those who believe lame pot-shots are being smart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
discopants
November 12, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to JNagarya
She does know the truth. That's why she was intentionally vague and misleading by asking "Who makes a decision like that?" Clearly she was implying a connection to the current administration or Democrats in general when she knows there's no truth behind it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 12, 2009 9:24 PM in reply to discopants
She is about insinuation, yes; but the "premise" for her insinuations are all made up out of thin air, or borrowed from fringe loons who made the up, some in all deluded sincerity.
I don't think she knows -- or cares -- in every instance whether the premises are true: all that matters to her is the insinuation, the smear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
November 10, 2009 7:50 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/anita-dunn-stepping-down-_n_352298.html
So who wants to bet Fox will be crowing that they ran Anita Dunn out?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BeeClone
November 10, 2009 7:54 PM
Sarah Palin doesn't need to be fact checked just remember if she said it it's not true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
November 10, 2009 8:22 PM
I think this proves she gets her info from chain e-mails. I've seen this one on snopes. Maybe someone should forward her a link. Of course snopes is liberal biased ya know.
Check out the snopes link dated Mar 17 2009
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MrsD
November 10, 2009 8:25 PM
Now that Bachman's star is rising among the wingnuts, they don't need Palin anymore. That's the message Fox was sending to their minions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NationalProtrusion
November 10, 2009 8:30 PM in reply to MrsD
Yeah, maybe Bachman is the new Palin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
November 10, 2009 8:32 PM in reply to NationalProtrusion
Actually they should run together. Palin/Bachman or Bachman/Palin? Not sure which is better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 11, 2009 2:24 AM in reply to tonnyb
Just watching the two of them fight that one out should be entertaining.
As someone I knew once said, "It's like professional wrestling. You don't really care who wins so long as there is lots of blood."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
November 10, 2009 8:39 PM
Although I worry about the violent lunatic fringe of the wacko rump fringe being constantly stirred up by Palin and Bachmann, I admit to the guilty pleasure of watching their race for the crown of undisputed batshit crazy champion. Still pretty hard to call that race. SP is going for the sociopathic obliviousness about whatever she's talking about, while MB falls more into the more deranged tinfoil paranoid column.
That said, I think the dizzy ditzies are doing more to further progressive legislation and D election victories than a lot of the current crop of DINOs
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
November 10, 2009 8:43 PM
I think the smartest thing Palin is doing is trying to cash in as big and as fast as she can. I don't think she has staying power due to her dual inabilities to either construct a coherent sentence or say anything that has any semblance of fact.
(Compare to William Kristol, who is almost always wrong, but he can at least say it in a coherent manner.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NationalProtrusion
November 10, 2009 9:05 PM in reply to Mr.E.
That's why Twitter is so attractive to her, I think. Only 140 characters, and you don't have to spell correctly. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Snarki, child of Loki
November 10, 2009 10:01 PM
That has GOT to be right up there with the GOP proposal to replace Hamilton on the $20 with Reagan, because "ALL the other bills have presidents!!1!".
Yeah, they really proposed that. On TV. And got the response "I'll bet you $100 that you're wrong".
And suddenly, the idea vanished. Funny, that.
But I bet Palin could be goaded into resurrecting the idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
November 11, 2009 2:29 AM in reply to Snarki, child of Loki
{cough}
Hamilton is on the $10. It's Andrew Jackson who is on the $20.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
November 11, 2009 3:57 AM in reply to slb
And I ain't on any of them. Capitalism sucks!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winston Smith
November 10, 2009 10:03 PM
The ironic thing is that the super-concentrated neocon power brokers don't trust Palin because she is not rich enough. They like that she is a former beauty queen ideologue, but they don't want her running the country because they know how stupid she is and, unlike, George II, she most likely won't take orders from a higher power VP and his shadow government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
November 10, 2009 10:35 PM in reply to Winston Smith
If the republican party elites don't like her...fine! She'll go off and start her own ... the Palin MILF party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
November 10, 2009 10:17 PM
9 things that Palin must do to be elected President in 2012:
1) Read a dozen good books on U.S. history and international relations.
2) Stop using Twitter until she knows of what she tweets. (Likewise for her Facebook drivel)
3) Cast off her trademark smug, smarmy, self-righteous demeanor. (No, Sarah, some parts of the country are NOT more pro-America than are other parts.)
4) Drop the faux folksy drawl and the contrived winking during speeches. (It didn't work for Jindal either)
5) Show more concern about her children's schooling and the value of a good education.
6) Stop evading the question during debates, lest viewers think she is evading the question during debates.
7) Stop blaming others for her own failures and shortcomings.
8) Quit quitting. Whether it be her governorship or her commitments to appear at a speaking engagement, she has a reputation for bailing on her responsibilities when the going gets tough.
9) Get even closer to God, cause it's gonna take divine intervention for her to be elected to POTUS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
UTMark
November 10, 2009 11:20 PM
I don't know what's more funny, Palin's latest ridiculous statement or Fox fact-checking something. I know which one's most likely to happen again though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cheneyisadick
November 10, 2009 11:35 PM
As we all know by now, she can dish it out, but she sure can't take it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
November 10, 2009 11:45 PM
Um.... what? That's like a shit is saying farts smell bad...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarvintheCat
November 11, 2009 1:32 AM
I was friends with Brett in college. He was even tied naked to a tree in front of my neighbors house one night. I know he doesn't believe everything he reads to the camera. He's told us as much in lighter moments.
It's nice to see them questioning her. As much as I can't stand Fox News I did cringe when Jon Stewart called him "No Neck Johnson." Sure, accurate. But I do grapple with the dissonance between the decent dude I knew in college and the tool everyone would make him out to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Markle
November 11, 2009 2:51 AM
I can understand how being tied naked to a tree brings some humanity to dear "Brett with no neck". I could say I might not even mind having a beer with him.
Of course there's a herd of other heathens at ye old Faux Spews that I'd rather see tied, or more appropriately chained, to a tree. Bunch o' weasels!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Monster
November 11, 2009 8:27 AM
Wow. I wish I could follow this woman. I haven't had a good relationship with absurdity since I stopped watching the Simpsons because of Fox.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DYJ
November 11, 2009 10:07 AM
That's what happens when you depend on chain email for your news.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Colin Laney
November 11, 2009 10:10 AM
Fox must be backing Huckabee.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AZskeptic
November 11, 2009 10:45 AM
I forget, when was Franklin president?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BettyO
November 11, 2009 10:52 AM
Sarah was right. The 2005 Presidential Coin Act was by the Mint and the Federal Reserve. The 2005 coins did not have the phrase in the front, but on the edge of the coin. That was changed by Congress in 2007 to put the phrase back on the face of the coin. Look it up... 2005 Presidential Coin Act... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_$1_Coin_Act_of_2005 ... check out the images of the 2005 coins.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BettyO
November 11, 2009 10:53 AM
Are you people so stupid that you never verify anything????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WillDemAR
November 11, 2009 11:17 AM in reply to BettyO
Betty, Palin didn't offer up what you first posted. Please re-read the original TPM post above. Instead, SP was referring to "recent change" and implying that somehow Obama's administration was behind the coin changes. It's obvious she had no clue when the first changes were made or by whom, nor that Congress had made its own changes later on. But...nice try anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WaitWut?
November 11, 2009 11:23 AM in reply to BettyO
Betty, you aren't keeping up with the conversation. Don't be sad because all these mean-spirited people are pointing out the obvious about your Goddess. We'll all back her run for Pres in '12...really we will.
Be careful when you say, "Are you people so stupid that you never verify anything????"...it makes you look silly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann Arbor
November 11, 2009 11:23 AM
Perhaps Betty thinks that Palin was calling out the America-hating secularists in the Bush administration.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustynbo
November 11, 2009 1:00 PM
What is wrong with what she said? She made an observation about a coin and questioned who made these decisions. If you will check facts you will find that she took on wrong in both political parties while Governor of Alaska. I expect she will continue to do the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WillDemAR
November 11, 2009 2:00 PM in reply to dustynbo
From the original Politico article...
In addition to the suggestion that government officials would consider hastening the death of the infirm or handicapped, she began her remarks with a puzzling commentary on the design of newly minted dollar coins.
Noting that there had been a lot of “change” of late, Palin recalled a recent conversation with a friend about how the phrase “In God We Trust” had been moved to the edge of the new coins.
“Who calls a shot like that?” she demanded. “Who makes a decision like that?”
She added: “It’s a disturbing trend.”
Unsaid but implied was that the new Democratic White House was behind such a move to secularize the nation’s currency.
The context makes it pretty clear that she was attempting to place the coin change in the current timeframe. So, either she simply "shoots from the hip" without regard to knowledge/fact or she was attempting to plant a misleading idea for her sycophants to get riled up about -- either way, kinda scary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustynbo
November 11, 2009 3:28 PM in reply to WillDemAR
That is the Politico writer's spin. She was asking the question. She does not agree with all Republicans. You may not realize, but she is not in good favor with the Republican Party. The GOP is strongly pursuing moderate, or move to the left candidates. Sarah Palin does not fit that bill. She is asking "who is making these decisions" fully knowing that she may be taking on some of the moderate/left leaning of the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 11, 2009 4:48 PM in reply to dustynbo
The GOP is pursuing moderates? On what planet?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dustynbo
November 11, 2009 5:09 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
I'm sorry. Maybe I understated the problem. Did you happen to follow the NY 23rd congressional election? Maybe I should have more accurately stated that the GOP is pursuing liberal candidates. Bottom line, Sarah Palin is trying to address wrong vs right. That can be within either, or both, political parties. Not sure how many more ways I can state this to make it clear. The Politico article was written to "imply" something that Sarah Palin did not say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sirsteveuk
November 12, 2009 2:42 PM in reply to dustynbo
"Pursuing" ???
Yes - like the Frankenstein monster was "pursued" by a torch-and-axe carrying mob !!!
The GOP 'pursued' their 'liberal' candidate only until their leader Limbaugh 'suggested' that Hoffman was the better (in fact only) candidate of the right. Then they switched horses in mid-race - leaving their original candidate no option but to withdraw.
You really must be on planet Zog to believe what you wrote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 12, 2009 2:50 PM in reply to sirsteveuk
That is, in fact, exactly right. They had a moment where they thought a moderate would win (and in fact they would have), but that didn't satisfy the fringe so the GOP piled on.
@dustynbo: please give me one example of Sarah Palin taking a moderate approach or where her view of "right" coincidences with anything that is not on the extreme right of the political spectrum. Just one example and I'll shut up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ejg3
November 11, 2009 5:42 PM
"In God We Trust" first appeared on a Union two cent piece during the middle of the Civil War. I guess the good folks north of the Mason Dixon line figured God was only on their side and it went well with the words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic. We got under God added to our pledge of allegiance thanks to the 1950s Red Scare and Joe McCarthy. The main problem a lot of folks in our Country have is their belief that we are the only nation under God which is nicely mirrored by some of the other fundamentalist beliefs found in other parts of the world among other varieties of religious extremists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 12, 2009 2:52 PM in reply to ejg3
Good history there. This is the reason why it cracks me up whenever someone uses the line about it being what our "founding fathers" wanted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
grantimatter
November 13, 2009 11:34 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
More historical fun: Republican Teddy Roosevelt wanted to take "In God We Trust" *off* our currency because he considered it blasphemous to link money and God. New York Times covered it in 1907.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 13, 2009 12:34 PM in reply to grantimatter
Funny--so did Jesus.
You know, I've actually never thought about it from that perspective--linking money to God is blaspheme. I'm going to use that argument the next time I have the opportunity.
Thanks for the thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
uchoice0001
November 12, 2009 1:55 AM
Maybe God would decide something.I am not a god-believer.
hardy hoodie
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nepa
November 12, 2009 7:22 AM
Let me see if I get this right: Palin notices that the words on the coin have been moved and asks who authorizes this.
Based on this, the author speculates that she is referring to the Obama administration (without any facts that she is) and speculates that Fox News does not fact check her (when it was FOX that presented the most damning information against her last fall, with Carl Cameron's reports from inside the McCain Camp, and Fox that did fact checking on McCain and Palin throughout the campaign).
Based on this brief comment and a lot of speculation, an article is written and commentators leap to conclusions. Wow. TPM people really are bright.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 12, 2009 2:58 PM in reply to nepa
No, actually, what she said was that a friend of hers told her that that had happened. Which is her main problem. Doesn't read the news and gets all her information from the same chain emails you forward to all your friends.
If she'd looked up that fact before she spouted this off, my guess is that it would have never made it into her speech because she wouldn't have had anything to infer.
90% of what people say isn't the actual words, but the connotation, the intonation, and the context with which those words are used. Pick up a psychology book sometime and you'll have a whole new view of Sarah Palin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ed Morris
November 12, 2009 9:31 AM
Who was the first person to suggest: "Hey, let's put religous messages on our money to give the currency a stronger impression of legitimatacy...at the expense of cheapening the religeous message by making the materialistic connection."
..besides, why would we entrust our money to an allbeing that has no use for it? Wouldn't it make more sense to put 'In God we trust' on our death certificates?
- aiming for the rim or on the face doesn't matter, what matters is who the money shot goes to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bracken
November 17, 2009 10:07 AM in reply to Ed Morris
Bon mot, Ed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WillDemAR
November 12, 2009 10:07 AM
To nepa and dusty’s comments above...
Sure, bright enough to base conclusions on the proven inability of the former governor to make comments that are based in fact! Her contribution over the last year to meaningful political discourse in this country can be classified as "immature" at best.
She’s certainly well aware of the effect her comments can have on a certain segment of the American populace. Since the result of many of her comments both “on the stump” with McCain and after her exodus as governor have been to incite/rile up her supporters, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the Politico writer – her intentions can be accurately inferred. Do the Palin apologists truly believe the coin reference was “unintentional” and "off the cuff" -- that it was somehow a probing insight into “right vs. wrong”? Given her history, that conclusion would require a massive leap of faith in the face of heavy evidence to the contrary! My take is that she was simply offering up another potshot at the current administration, whether it had any factual or intellectual relevance at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
January 31, 2010 2:24 PM
what does he mean by gooogle??
Buy Kamagra M65 Field Jacket
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?