Why is the "Christian Division" of Simon & Schuster Publishing Frank Bailey's Book?

Frank Bailey, the poster child for malicious disgruntled former employees, has a book coming out soon. Actually, Jeanne Devon (a.k.a. AKMuckracker) has a book coming out soon, Bailey just allowed her to use his former perceived proximity to Governor Palin, and his name to sell the same old tired memes she has blogged about for years. We covered the manuscript here and elsewhere extensively after the it was first leaked online several months ago. To recall the character of Frank Bailey, here is what I posted at Big Government last February:

After reading this manuscript, my only conclusion is that Frank Bailey is a horrible person. A good person, as Frank likes to sell himself as, doesn’t have the capacity to do what he did. Even if Governor Palin was twice the monster he and his leftist allies made her out to be, he still had no right to attempt to have this pile of garbage published. She provided him with a job, which allowed him to provide for his family. At any time, he could have walked away if he felt he worked for someone he could not morally support. Anyone who cannot see this man for what he is, is being willfully ignorant. They are turning a blind-eye to the obvious motives that drove him to betray his former boss.

Frank Bailey's motives in my view, were greed and vengeance. This man of little skill, decided to try and cash-in on the job he no longer had, and was incompetent at when he did have it. He was after all, the only member of the Palin administration who had ever been recommended to receive ethics training by a state investigator. His lack of ethics were his own doing, but this book proves he is incapable of taking responsibility for his actions. Instead, he tries to flip the blame on to Governor Palin and her husband, even though he has no evidence to support his claims. The emails printed in the book (if they're even real) don't say a whole lot. The meat of this trashing is in between the emails, where Jeanne (with her own far-left political motives) practically does nothing more than paste copy from Mudflats.

Without a doubt, this book is designed to destroy the public perception of Governor Palin. It is a book made with the sole purpose of tearing down another individual, and nothing else...

Which is why I was shocked to learn that Howard Books, the "Christian Division" of Simon & Schuster would be publishing it. Howard Books has the following posted in the "About" section of their website:

Founded in 1969 by author and composer Alton Howard, Howard Publishing was among the first Christian publishers to appear in the CBA industry.

Perhaps best known for its gift-book division and bestselling Hugs series (selling over ten million), Howard has other numerous successes to its credit, including New York Times #1 bestseller Mistaken Identity and Rick Warren’s The Purpose of Christmas. In 2006, Howard Publishing was acquired by Simon & Schuster and underwent the subtle name change to Howard Books.

Why on earth would a so-called "Christian" company get involved with this book? What "Christian" message is being sent in an over-sized politically driven hit-piece, designed to destroy?

And just how ludicrous is it that Jeanne Devon is being published as a Christian author? I don't know exactly what her beliefs are, but she has shown nothing but animosity to religious Christians, with everything else she's ever written. She generally refers to them as "whack-jobs," and lists religious blog posts under a tag she calls "whackjobbery." Is this some kind of sick joke?

It's true that Jeanne (and her lefty sidekick Ken Morris) laced the text of the book with Bible verses. In a very deceitful display, the writers try to make Frank Bailey out to be the good guy by making it seem as though he is a man of God, who is only doing this for good and pious reasons. Those verses are nothing more than a blasphemous disguise. To use the sacred text of the faithful as mask and cover in a political lynching is just about the opposite of Christianity. There is nothing Christian about this.

While I have more questions than answers as to why Simon & Schuster chose to market this book in the manner they did, I know one thing for certain... I don't trust that the books published from them are "Christian" books, but I do trust they they are marketing their books to a very large Christian demographic. Is it profit or politics driving them? I don't know but it certainly isn't religion.

Correcting Gossip Huckster Shushannah Walshe

I realize that many Palin supporters are tired of hearing about Frank Bailey and his hideous manuscript. However, we cannot let members of the press continue to regurgitate the lies within the text of that unpublished book, with their charges going unanswered. A few days ago, Shushannah Walshe published a couple of articles pertaining to the Bailey manuscript. Since the links to her pieces are still bouncing around, all over the internet, her repeated assertions deserve to be highlighted for what they are, and the record corrected.

I addressed the most insidious segment her first article in the piece I posted at Big Government, last week, dealing with Bailey's lie in regard to the RGA. Today, I want to tackle some of the other assertions Walshe made. She began:

"Bailey Quashes Gossip About Trig Palin's Birth"
Although most of the tell-all is incredibly scathing, Bailey—who was not only an administrative staffer but also booked personal travel for the Palin family and worked around the clock to please his boss—aims to put the gossip about Bristol Palin giving birth to Sarah's fifth child, Trig, to an end.

How noble of him... Considering how detestable that piece of "gossip" is, I'm not too impressed with Bailey's effort. I gather it's nice to have the sort of source that the fruitcakes who push that theory would trust, out there. If only to get them to think twice before pushing their conspiracies on to the public. Obviously Bailey addressed this issue because it was easy for him to do so, and to give himself an ounce of credibility.

What strikes me is that Shushannah opens her double hit-piece with this item. It's a classic Walshe move. Play nice in the beginning, then turn around to take shots and push horrible lies later. They say, "every good lie has some truth to it." Perhaps Shushannah thought the same goes for her gossipy sourced tabloid-style attack articles.

Next, Walshe offers up a host of segments in which she uses the title of each as a stated fact, then attempts to back it up with blurbs from Bailey's manuscript. Posting demonizing titles such as "Palin Used Her Children for Political Gain," "Palin Helps Publicize Rumors About Her Family," and "Palin Said She Hated Being Governor."

By the way, even after you read the section that insinuates Governor Palin publicized "rumors about her family," you realize that what the governor was alleged to have done is correct the record for her family's sake. It would be the same for Shushannah Walshe to claim that this piece is also publicizing rumors about the governor's family. Earth to Walshe - You have to repeat a charge in order to clear it up. Where's the scandal in that?

The words Walshe pastes into her article under the other sections, are words that have already been discredited. Most of them are old left-wing attack lines, recycled for the once prospective readers of this non-book, and now by a columnist for the Daily Beast. The majority of the insinuations referenced by Walshe cannot be verified, and Bailey usually offers no evidence in the form of communications (i.e. emails) with the governor to back them up. Essentially, these people (Walshe included) are partaking in character assassination using hearsay, and in some instances, using the governor's children as a weapon.

In the second installment of the Bailey infused hit-pieces, Walshe once again uses the governor's husband and children to attack her. She states the following:

"Todd and Sarah Palin Had Marital Problems, Neglected the Kids"
Sarah Palin appeared to trust Bailey and confided in him on all topics, including family matters. In an email, Palin told him that Todd was working behind her back on the Troopergate affair, writing to Bailey: "We're not like normal couples, Frank. We don't talk."

Walshe is either lying or that was just a lazy guess on her part. She wrote that "In an email, Palin told him that"... Ah no, there was no email cited. As I have stated elsewhere, I have read the manuscript and can even tell you what page Walshe should have been looking at to write this section. Bailey's assertion is printed as a quote (which I guess we are all supposed to believe came from his vast memory bank) not an email. This quote is hearsay, not documented proof that the governor ever said such a thing.

Then, from the mind of the discredited disgruntled former employee, Walshe repeats the manuscript's attempt to twist normal behavior from children, into a damning critique of the governor's parenting skills. He cites events (without proof) such as a child not wearing a seat-belt (for however long) and alleging that one of her kids may or may not have received a bad grade. All in an effort to paint the governor as a horrible parent. It's one of many dirty avenues the writers of the manuscript, drove down to trash Governor Palin.

Walshe continues her piece in the same fashion, repeating the many claims of Frank Bailey. From demonizing the governor's use of basic political strategies, to trashing her faith, to trashing her husband's alleged response to a prankster, to trashing the people who vetted the governor for the McCain campaign, to scapegoating Bailey's own record, Shushannah's pieces is another heap of unsubstantiated garbage.

It didn't surprise me to see these articles from Shushannah Walshe, given her recent history writing about Governor Palin. After she co-wrote a book with the governor as the center-piece, Walshe took a turn for the worse. I imagine that it's possible that her need for attention directed her shift. After all, MSNBC is the only network who gives her any exposure, so it's a possibility that she's playing to the owners of the cameras.

Walshe, who once had the opportunity to interview the governor's family, is now trashing that family. From writing multiple hit-pieces (designed to appeal to a left-wing audience), to openly communicating with the likes of Palingates, this woman has developed into quite the smear merchant. I have to wonder what kind of character a person has to have in order to make their living by perpetually slandering and libeling another individual. Does Walshe not possess any redeemable qualities or skill-set to make an honest living? I know Palin supporters who once regarded Walshe as an objective writer. That is no longer the case. Shushannah Walshe has now reduced herself to irrelevancy. You cannot expect to be successful by repeating discredited information, while trashing another person, when there are hundreds of other vulture columnists doing the same thing. At the very least, maybe Shush should consider picking a different topic to write about once in awhile.

Frank Bailey's Betrayal of Sarah Palin

The story of the leaked manuscript of former Palin aide Frank Bailey is getting a lot of traction as the mainstream media finds ways to maximize and defend the indefensible. Andy Barr and Ben Smith from Politico have taken it upon themselves (obviously without legal council) to run a story repeating distorted claims by a troubled ex-employee, with the goal of smearing Governor Palin in mind. Barr and Smith ponder why it is that no publisher has signed on to print Bailey's manuscript, which he has been trying to sell for almost 18 months. On top of the legal ramifications, there are many reasons.

They do note that Bailey chose an anti-Palin writer and a "critic" of Governor Palin to help pen the text. What they didn't state is that "critic," a man by the name of Ken Morris, is a known leftist who has a history of pulling obsessive stunts directed towards Governor Palin, and that the other writer, Jeanne Devon, is a legend in the Alaskan left-wing blogoshpere for her unhinged, freakish behavior aimed at hurting the governor. These aren't just people who disagree with her politics. These are people who have spent a lot of time, money, and integrity trying to damage Governor Palin.

Now, just who is Frank Bailey? Other than what's on the surface - that being his connection as a former employee of the former Governor of Alaska. What was his role in her administration and why did he chose to publicly stab his former employer in the back? The Politico article notes:

A Palin ally, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that Bailey and Palin corresponded and that the former aide had access to Palin’s passwords and her email account. But the Palin ally said that the content should be viewed through the lens of Bailey being “the quintessential disgruntled employee” who had been denied senior jobs he sought, cut out of Palin’s vice presidential campaign, and been caught up in the “Troopergate” scandal.

This man felt as though he had been denied a senior post in the administration. I have read his manuscript by the way, and can tell you that this guy thought he was doing a bang-up job for the governor. However, the evidence doesn't support his assertion. After all, Bailey was the only member of Governor Palin's administration who had ever been recommended to receive ethics training by a state investigator. I am not going to release any detailed information that isn't public already, but there are some pretty pointed lies within this manuscript that only take a few minutes on Google to figure out.

While working for Governor Palin, part of Bailey's job was to set up and maintain her email accounts. He had direct access, by way of knowing her password codes, to all of her messages. What he did with that access was highly unethical, a serious breach of trust, if not the law. If indeed all the emails are actually hers in the first place.

Throughout the manuscript, Bailey voices frustration about feeling shut out. That indicates that the governor's staff knew Frank's limits and understood his character. So, here we have a "quintessential disgruntled employee” teaming up with far-left activists for profit. After a public spat between the writers and the leaker of the manuscript, the media is seeking to pick up the pieces, for their own profit essentially. And nothing would give the press more power to do so than to lend credibility to Bailey's manuscript. The first line that stood out for me in the Politico piece was when they wrote:

"But in Bailey’s manuscript it’s her own apparent words that do the greatest damage."

Having read the manuscript as I mentioned above, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the majority of the emails contradict the claims made by Bailey, via Devon and Morris. The filler in-between the emails is full of innuendo and colorful words designed to make it seem as though Governor Palin possesses any number of negative character traits. What I found in reading her actual messages was a normal person, with normal emotion, usually with a great sense of humor. It was quite a stretch for these writers to insinuate the things that they did.

Next up, the guys from Politico write:

"Much of the proposed book’s text focuses on the topic that, he writes, ultimately consumed her governorship: The maintenance of her public image, an obsession with rumors about her family, and her frustration with her portrayal in the media."

Governor Palin is a politician. Public image is sort of a vital aspect of consideration in that field. That's just a reality. But to say that it "ultimately consumed her governorship" is defamatory and wrong. Sure, you can release a very small percentage of my own emails, toss in some adjectives, and lead readers to come to the conclusion that all I care about is the status of the restroom renovations at my office. Yes, it's true. I have dedicated many emails to various individuals about water pressure, light fixtures, and automatic hand dryers. It's amazing that I still know how to do artwork at all.

Then Barr and Smith make this assertion:

"In the months before she resigned the governorship, when her poll numbers began to slip, Palin’s advisers sought to bolster her spirits by making the unsubstantiated case that she was being targeted by the Obama White House and Democratic National Committee."

Just watch the 11 minute clip I linked under the word "behavior" (in the Jeanne Devon paragraph) and see if Governor Palin was wrong to assume that Democrats were coordinating attacks against her. It wasn't to "bolster her spirits" but rather to try and put their finger on just why Democrat operatives kept filing charges against her, then (in violation) leaking their charges to the press.

Barr & Smith then go on to repeat claims (and post stolen emails) asserting that Governor Palin doesn't like the media very much.... What a revelation! Must I repeat why? At this point, I don't think any honest person could blame her for distrusting the press.

After reading this manuscript, my only conclusion is that Frank Bailey is a horrible person. A good person, as Frank likes to sell himself as, doesn't have the capacity to do what he did. Even if Governor Palin was twice the monster he and his leftist allies made her out to be, he still had no right to attempt to have this pile of garbage published. She provided him with a job, which allowed him to provide for his family. At any time, he could have walked away if he felt he worked for someone he could not morally support. Anyone who cannot see this man for what he is, is being willfully ignorant. They are turning a blind-eye to the obvious motives that drove him to betray his former boss.

UPDATE: Now Sushannah Walshe at the Daily Beast has weighed in on the manuscript, and repeated an absurd accusation by Bailey that "Palin Broke Election Law." Walshe writes:

Bailey accuses Palin of blatant illegal activity. During her 2006 campaign for governor, Bailey alleges that Palin broke election law by working with the Republican Governors Association to shoot a campaign commercial. State candidates are not legally allowed to work with groups like the RGA, which ran ads at the time on her behalf, though supposedly "independent" of the Palin gubernatorial campaign.

The suggestion that Governor Palin broke any election laws is simply not true. Ian Lazaran (who has also read the manuscript) wrote about this the other day:

Even assuming the e-mails are authentic for the sake of argument, the bigger problem for Bailey is that he fails to produce even one e-mail from the Governor to support his argument that she coordinated with the RGA in the production of the ad. He even fails to quote anything that the Governor allegedly said that would support his argument that she coordinated with the RGA to produce the ad at issue. What Bailey essentially does is accuse the Governor of breaking a campaing law without citing to an e-mail that she allegedly wrote or to anything that she allegedly said that would support his claim.

The Knowles campaign complained about the RGA ad and the Alaska Democrat Party filed a complaint against Palin alleging illegal coordination with the RGA in the production of the ad. The complaint was subsequently dismissed. The funny thing is that the e-mails that Bailey claims to have come from Governor Palin after the ad ran are clearly exculpatory. The two e-mails that allegedly come from Governor Palin show someone who doesn't have the foggiest idea about why the Tony Knowles' campaign and the Alaska Democrat Party would be making such an allegation.

Now why would Governor Palin write what she did in these e-mails if she really did coordinate with the RGA to produce an illegal ad? If she was guilty, wouldn't she be sending her closest confidantes e-mails about how to cover up the misdeed?

Bailey's explanation for these Palin e-mails is that the Governor was purposefully playing dumb and trying to cover up her tracks. Why would she play coy when communicating with people she absolutely trusted? In order to believe Bailey's theory, one would also need to believe that the Governor envisioned a day when one of her confidantes would turn on her and that she prepared for such a scenario by making sure the e-mails she sent to the confidantes she expected to turn on her were purposefully dishonest.

In this video, her campaign spokesman Curtis Smith says he wrote in his diary about the degree of animosity that he held towards the RGA for producing the ad at issue (at around the 10:30 mark):

In Bailey's mind, Smith must have purposefully played dumb in his diary in the same way Governor Palin purposefully played dumb in her e-mails in order to protect himself from the day Frank Bailey would release an incoherent manuscript that failed to produce substantiated evidence that a wrongful act was committed.

Once again, we have a member of the media, who is willing to repeat the claims of this horrible character, that were written into an unpublished manuscript, by known leftists. This is not a "tell-all" book as they keep saying, but rather a 'tell whatever we like' piece of fiction.