Back in early September, the OPJ blogged about Sarah Palin's book banning proclivities. The by-now completely untrustworthy McCain campaign has denied everything, of course. Governor Palin herself regarded the story as "an old wives tale" This is from ABC:
In the remaining part of Charlie Gibson's interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to air later tonight on "20/20," she denies ever having tried to ban a book while mayor of Wasilla.Of course. But when she was on the city council:
Ahh, wiggle room. Republicans just love their wiggle room.
But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to [Laura] Chase (the campaign manager during Ms. Palin’s first run for mayor in 1996)and [former Mayor John] Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.
“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
Note to Fred Honsberger: It's nice to hear you on KDKA, my friend. But Fred, recently I've heard you defend Governor Palin with this line of reasoning:
But no books were ever banned from the library.You have to know that that's not really much of a defense. Here's why: It's pretty obvious that she tried to ban books she (and/or her church) found offensive. Isn't that bad enough? What defender of free thought would even want to ban a book?
Whether she succeeded is another matter altogether. But just trying to get a book banned is sin enough in a free society, don't you think?