Newest:* No, thereÂ’s no evidence she had an extramarital affair, and theyÂ’ve denied it pretty strongly (OldSpook McCain is threatening a libel lawsuit).
* No, she wasnÂ’t named as a co-respondent in a divorce; thereÂ’s no evidence she had an affair with her husbandsÂ’ business partner.
* No, the former business partner did not succeed in sealing his divorce records. He attempted to have them sealed because he and his 11 year old son are being harrassed by "journalists" who used them to get his phone number and address.
* No it was not to hide any involvement by Sarah Palin; the Palins are not metioned at all in the documents.
* Yes, Sarah PalinÂ’s acceptance speech was written by a speechwriter. Duh. No, none of ObamaÂ’s, McCainÂ’s, nor BidenÂ’s speeches were impromptu off the cuff things either.
On to most of the recent ones:
* yes, she was vetted extensively, not just in three days — I’ve got links to press reports about people coming to Wassila on 29 May, and we had her on our Veepstakes at PJM from the first day we ran it.
* no, they didnÂ’t talk to a lot of the RÂ’s power structure during the vetting; that probably has to do with the fact that she beat them in elections and sent a bunch of them to jail.
* yes, her 17 year old daughter is pregnant; no, the babyÂ’s father is not an eighth grader; no, having sex at 16 is not statutory rape in Alaska
* Yes, barring immaculate conception, Bristol appears to have had sex with her fiancee. No, Bristol didn’t receive only “abstinence-only” sex ed.
* yes, she did try, clearly unsuccessfully, to get Bristol married off to her fiancee before the story came out
* no, it wasnÂ’t a shotgun wedding; Bristol and Levi been engaged for a good while according to *his* mother. It was either an accident or just an unconventional order.
* No she wasnÂ’t a member of the (wild-eyed libertarian) Alaska independence Party, although her husband once was
* No, neither the (Canadian) National Post, nor Marc Armbinder at the Atlantic have troubled themselves to issue a correction. Yes, the New York Times did finally correct their story of September 1 — on September 5. This was after Elizabeth Bumiller was quoted by Howard Kurtz as saying she was “completely confident about the story.” Yes, that was after the New York Times’s source retracted the story. Yes, this should embarrass the Times, Bumiller, and Howard Kurtz. No, there have been no signs of embarrassment.
* No, she was never a Pat Buchanan supporter; even when Buchanan claims she was, she was on the board of Steve ForbesÂ’a campaign in Alaska.
* No, Buchanan doesnÂ’t support her now; in fact heÂ’s supporting Obama. (Buchanan did think her speech was amazing, but then so do 80 percent of the people who saw it.)
* No, sheÂ’s not anti-semitic. In fact, she has an Israeli flag in her office. (Contrary to popular belief, the usual Evangelical thinks Israel has a right to exist, granted by God.)
* No, she’s doesn’t believe that the Iraq War was directed by God. Yes, she did pray that proceeding with the war was God’s will. (Ever hear the phrase “Not my will, but Thine, be done”?)
* yes, she did fire the public safety guy — but he said in the Anchorage paper that, for the record, she never, and no one else in her administration ever, tried to make him fire her ex-brother-in-law
* and yes, the state trooper (her sister’s ex-husband) she was worried about did: tase her 10 year old nephew; drive his state patrol car while drinking or drunk; did threaten to “bring her down”; and did threaten to murder her father and sister if they dared to get an attorney to help with the divorce.
* yes, she did fire the Wasilla Chief of Police as Mayor; yes, it was because he was lying to the City Council.
* Yes, she did try to cut her own salary as Mayor by $4000 a year; yes, she had voted against the $4000 a year raise while on the City Council.
* No, she didn’t cut funding for unwed mothers; yes, she did increase it by “only” 354 percent instead of 454 percent, as part of a multi-year capital expenditures program. No, the Washington Post doesn’t appear to have corrected their story. Even after this was pointed out in the comments on the story.
* No, she didn’t cut special needs student funding; yes, she did raise it by “only” 175 percent.
* yes, she did ask the librarian if some books could be withdrawn because of being offensive; no, they couldnÂ’t; yes she did threaten to fire the librarian a month later; no, that wasnÂ’t over the books thing but instead over administrative issues; no, the librarian wasnÂ’t fired either; yes, the librarian was a big supporter of one of her political opponents; yes, the librarian was also the girlfriend of the Chief of police mentioned above; no, this is not the first time in the history of civilization that someone has been threatened with being fired over a political dispute
* No the list of books she wanted to ban thatÂ’s being passed around isnÂ’t real; among other things, it includes a number of books published after her time in office there.
* No, that hasnÂ’t actually deterred people from claiming it really is true even if the list isnÂ’t correct.
* yes, she apparently believes in some variant of Intelligent Design
* no, she didnÂ’t try to force the schools to teach it; she said if someone brought it up, it was an appropriate subject for debate.
* yes, she sometimes wears her hair up; no that’s not a “beehive”
* yes, she was a beauty contest contestant
* yes, she was once a sportscaster
* yes, she want to a bunch of colleges before getting a degree. No, thatÂ’s not illegal. Yes, she seems to have made something of herself anyway.
* yes, she has a college degree in Journalism, but I wonÂ’t hold that against her, as she seems to have found honest work in spite of it.
* yes, she kills animals and eats them, and wears their skins
A Lot more in the extensive list at the link, with references to back up the "debunk". Did you have any idea there were that many (uncorrected) smears in the media?