That would be “no”.
By mw | Related entries in Palin, Partisan NonsenseAnd the question is from Alan’s post: “Can the Left Make the AIP Story Stick?”
On Tuesday morning the New York Times printed a front page story asserting that Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. On Tuesday evening the New York Times printed a retraction, saying their source was wrong. I guess that means that the story was insufficiently – um – What’s the word? – “V” something… Oh yeah. The story was insufficiently vetted.
Alaska Party Official Says Palin Was Not a Member
By The New York Times
The chairwoman of an Alaskan political party that advocates a vote on the state’s succession from the union said Tuesday that she had been mistaken when she said Gov. Sarah Palin was a member of the group.
A front-page story in The New York Times on Tuesday and articles in other news media reported that Ms. Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990’s.
The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party’s chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.
On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify. The McCain campaign also disputed the Times report, saying that Ms. Palin had been registered consistently as a Republican.
After checking the party’s archives, Ms. Clark said that she could find no documentation that Governor Palin had been a member of the party. She said Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.
For anyone keeping score:
Troopergate? – No “there” there.
Sleazy rumors that her down syndrome child was her daughters? – False.
She is a member of AIP? – New York Times Retraction.
Next.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 and is filed under Palin, Partisan Nonsense. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 am
…and watch as the liberal MSM’s reputation and circulation keeps going down the toilets.
Soon enough, you won’t be able to tell the difference between CNN, the NY times, US Weekly or the National Enquirer. Oh wait…
Actually, sorry, that’s not true and actually offensive to the National Enquirer. At least they have the decency to go after both Republicans and Democrats.
Seriously though, I’m still stunned at the scale, viciousness and nastiness shown towards this woman and her family. And I thought conservatives were supposed to be haters, smear artists and all that typically evil Rethuglican stuff. The liberals sure proved them wrong this week. Oh well. I think this is gonna turn much much more nastier than it has already been, for both sides…
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 am
phin:
Its the final stretch of an election year. The nastiness quotient doesn’t get any higher than this time of the decade. In a month you’ll be reading about death threats aimed at writers of a newspaper because they endorsed on candidate over the other. Sadly enough this is what politics in America has descended to.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 am
Not so fast on Troopergate being nothing.
For one, that investigation is ongoing. Also, as recentlyas August 15th, Gov. Palin reversed her original claim — that no one from her office pressured Mr. Monegan — when a taped call to a AKSP lieutenant from Frank Bailey, the Alaska Boards and Commissions Director, emerged. It’s not a smoking gun, but it does give Monegan credibility in his claim. I listened to the tape and I know what I’d infer if I were on the other end of the line.
Now, of course, the governor is well-lawyered up and is attempting to move the investigation from the legislature to the state ethics board, a three-person body whose members are appointed by, wait for it… the governor. So much for full cooperation and transparency.
In the end this thing may still be less than meets the eye, but to say there’s no “there” there is a premature conclusion.
(Some links: http://tinyurl.com/57vd9d, http://tinyurl.com/5d9wsn, http://tinyurl.com/66ejf2, http://tinyurl.com/5623om)
For two, the Wikipedia article on Palin got an intense scrub in the hours preceding the big announcement last Friday. I’d take that source — especially around the time you posted from it — with a grain of salt.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:41 am
Then what about this video, in which Palin addresses the AIP?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI
And this one, “in which Dexter Clark, vice chairman of the AIP, gives a speech where he refers to Sarah Palin as a former member of the AIP and still sympathetic to their agenda.” ??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHFY1otOWjQ
Also, who is “mw”? Can we get a little more transparency please? This is supposed to be a non-partisan site after all…
As well, phin, I agree with Dyre. There’s slinging on both sides, but if you’re referring to the manner with which bloggers, in specific, have been giving attention to Palin, I agree. As far as Obama’s campaign and overall liberals go, I would disagree, as the rumor mill was started by the Enquirer.
Beyond that, I think the issue has cemented into people’s minds by now and they’ve made their decision as to whether or not they think Palin is fit to run this country on any level, and these issues regarding her family need to be dropped.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:55 am
Wow, great job ignoring that her husband WAS a member of this secessionist group. What if it were Michelle Obama as a member of a group like this? Yeah. “Liberal” media bias strikes again.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:29 am
Phin,
How ironic that you find the National Inquirer to be such a bastion of journalistic credibility, since they have a wonderfully sensationalistic piece of troopergate coming out, not to mention they claim they are the ones who broke the Bristol pregnancy, assert Sarah Palin was arranging a shotgun wedding, and who knows what else.
If you don’t like the way politics are played, I agree with you, but if you are implying the Democrats are evil for it, and the media are only liberal and only go after the GOP, you are living in a fantasy world of your own making.
The GOP whisper campaign about Obama being a muslim, about refusing to say the pledge of allegience, the connection to William Ayers, the refusal to visit military hospitals unless he could turn it into a photo op, Michelle Obama’s black radicalism or pride in her country, taxes, patriotism—the list is endless.
And that doesn’t include previous vile smears against John Kerry and, yes, John McCain when he ran against George W. (have you really foregotten the John McCain “black baby” and war torture makes him unfit for presidency because he has come close to nervious breakdown themes of the South Carolina primary in 2000?)
Or the Willie Horton/Dukakis smear?
If you don’t like the way politics is played, then you should be disgusted with the GOP because they wrote the rules.
Truth doesn’t matter anymore with email whisper campaigns (the lie about Obama the muslim who was sworn in with a Koran) or pushpolling (would you vote for McCain if you knew he fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman?); tactics created and used by the GOP.
Once again, if you’re disgusted with this, I’m fine with that and I have your back, but when you come in implying that the left and the media are smearing McCain because they somehow have a monopoly on this crap then how dare you even think anyone will give you the slightest speck of credibility.
mw,
While it is true that Palin was not a member of the AIP, we can not simply dismiss the AIP connection just because you say so. Her husband was a member, and whether she was or not, it is still extraordinary the governor of a state in the US would videotape an address to the party six months ago telling them to keep up the good work.
I don’t know if the left or msm will make it stick, but there is enough here to make hay about. Personally, the message I saw doesn’t bother me, other than it reinforces my growing belief that rather than being a new kind of politician, Palin is the same kind of canny politician I have grown tired of (the same thing I would say of Obama, btw)
Also, just because you don’t think there is anything to troopergate doesn’t mean there is nothing to it. This one disturbs me more than any other revelation because it displays a pattern that I find most upsetting about the current administration–she (like Bush) only wants yes men around her, and will use any means to get rid of people she doesn’t like. She did it while Mayor, she did it while governor.
Yes, as you noted before, and I agree, an executive has a great deal of leeway in removing at will employees, but I’m not so concerned about “legal”or even “right” (though “right” important to me.”)
What bothers me is the group think that evolves when you get a group of people or cronies who are all on the same page at the beginning, rather than coming to concensus through a process when honest disagreement should exist.
If you want to be charitable to Bush, the runup and decision to go to War can be attributed to no one in the room saying, “Äre we sure we know what we are doing?” The same kind of cronyism/group think let us down with Katrina, the US Attorney Scandal, and every other bad decision that has spilled from 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue for 8 years.
The more we know learn about Palin, the more clear it is that she can be a ruthless, old school politician….hardly the breath of fresh air she has been painted.
Frankly, I don’t care if anything “sticks”–as long as the process of public vetting leads us to a clearer understanding of who this woman is because right now all we have a GOP platitudes with no foundation.
I would think you would want the same, rather than supporting her blindly. Maybe I am misreading that, but you seem quite disturbed by these stories, but you don’t seem disturbed by the lack of real information about her.
I find both kind of disconcerting–when McCain picks a virtual unknown this late in the game, you’ve got to expect a lot of this feeling around in the dark.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:46 am
Justin I think the time has come to relieve mw of his right to post. Really this is just a completely partisan post. I thought donklephant was something different.
Nothing to troopergate – please.
gerryf on the other hand seems exactly on.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
Rob, so because someone offers a differing viewpoint, you must censor him? That is EXACTLY what this country needs.
Unfortunately, there are too many people too willing to only hear good things about the people they adore, and all the bad about the people they don’t. That kind of narrowminded thinking makes it ok to attack an inexperienced person for a lesser position while supporting an equally as inexperienced person for a more important position.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Rob, what utter nonsense. While Justin makes efforts, he leans to the left, and that includes what I’d call blatant cheerleading for Obama.
As a long-time centrist with posting privileges at such a site, I know for a fact that the only way to achieve something resembling centrism or moderation is by balancing left-leaners with right-leaners. MW makes this site MORE moderate, because the sheer volume of Justin’s posts give it a slight left flavor.
Oh and FWIW, I have the scars to prove my centrismn. Just yesterday I was referred to with something like “You and the rest of McCain’s followers…” Meanwhile most of the folks over at Stubborn Facts are convinced I am an Obama partisan.
I have frequent occasion to defend Barack Obama at Stubborn Facts. And here I am to defend Sarah Palin, and agree with mw. OH well. The act is Palin wasn’t in the AIP, and the further fact is that the speech she gave demonstrates not a fringe position, but a reasonable and a responsible one for a governor.
And when it comes to what folks are calling “troopergate,” the fact is that while the investigation is ongoing, there has yet to be a scintilla of evidence suggesting that Palin as governor did not have the right to remove the person she removed. I have yet to even hear anything suggesting that the person who was removed didn’t deserve it. But that’s my mileage as a moderate. Whenever I come upon a fight about whether one person had the right to remove someone else, I like to know what they did and whether they might have actually deserved removal.
Quite often such details are kept secret under the umbrella of privacy, but the fact is that they’re usually quite germane. Notice that the fringe folks are trumpeting this investigation while other prominent rabblerousers are not. This suggests that maybe some folks know why the removal occurred, and that they may be keeping their mouths shut because they know the meme will collapse WHEN these details get leaked. Just guessing there, but let’s wait and see.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 am
Andres – Maybe you didn’t actually read what I wrote. I think he should go to redstate or townhall, which I also read. I don’t think he should be here where I expect middle ground. Alan who I don’t agree with seems to be able to do it.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:54 am
Sorry Rob,
if you see Gerryf’s comments as being unbiased, you need to look again. For instance:
“…then you should be disgusted with the GOP because they wrote the rules.”
“…she (like Bush) only wants yes men around her,…”
“The same kind of cronyism/group think let us down with Katrina, the US Attorney Scandal, and every other bad decision that has spilled from 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue for 8 years.”
If this is an unbiased, non partisan site, then does that mean that all partisan comments get removed? If so, Then you would have to remove Gerryf’s. He has some great points but the post is laced with bias. Palin needs to be honestly and openly vetted. Her past experience and decisions need to be reviewed, no doubt about it.
But, if the media is going to honestly review and vet Palin, then I think the same has to be done for Obama. To paraphrase, I find it, “kind of disconcerting–when the Democratic Party picks a virtual unknown.”
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 am
Boy, the right wing sure does get their panties in a bunch when they don’t like the media coverage.
It’s ok to talk about radical associations and abuses of power when it relates to Obama, whether it’s true or not, but if it’s about McCain or Palin, it’s the liberal media at work.
Republican hypocrisy knows no bounds. I would hate to have to be a Republican, relying solely on low-information voters to win elections, as the age of instant information is upon us. They really are on the road to irrelevancy. Enjoy your southern regional niche party after November.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 am
kranky kritter wrote:
Seems the governor’s had some trouble defining it.
This from a local news report on 8/15/2008:
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 am
Rob,
mw is the operator of the Divided We Stand United We Fall blog and has been honest that he leans right of center, and given the premise of his philosophy that a divided government is the best government it is quitenatural that he veers extra right when the House and Senate are Dem controlled.
I’m not even sure it is a conscious decision, but he has been veering a little more than usual ;).
That said, he has a lot of good stuff to add to the discussion; this post is a little more shrill than some, but to be fair, the Palin attacks have been A LOT more shrill than warranted.
Kranky,
I can never figure out where you stand either. That’s how I know you’re a centrist. There is no question that Palin had the right to remove Monaghan as state police commissioner; no one is saying she did not.
The question is was she right in doing it. It’s unquestionable that before he was canned that there were conversations regarding Palin’s brother in law. It is clear that Monaghan refused to terminate him. It is also clear that Monaghan fought with Palin over the police budget and it is clear that Palin wanted to cut that budget, even though she said in her campaign that she wanted to increase police funding.
I have no doubt whatsoever Palin as governor could can him–I am also pretty convinced she goosed him because he wouldn’t cowtow to her demands.
Now, if this were two weeks ago, or if Palin were not a VP, the only people who get to make the call on whether Palin did the right thing are the people of Alaska.
Now, Palin is a VP candidate and that put her in my ballpark so I get to decide if I think she did the right thing. As a voter, I get to decide if it was the right thing for her to do.
The firing is inconsequential.
I also get to decide if the person she replaced Monaghan with shows she is a good judge of character or is replacing someone she doesn’t like with someone who will do what she wants–and whether she properly investigated that person’s background. Seeing as how she hired a man with a sexual harassment charge on his record–and charge that was investigated and not expunged by his previous employer–and that she didn’t bother to learn that before hiring him, I think it is “fair” that I wonder if her judgment is solid.
That’s where I am coming from, anyway.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:29 am
I always chuckle when I read the drivel from brainwashed propagandoids like phin. “Liberal MSM?” That’s one of the biggest hoaxes ever purported. I’ll bet phin has a Q-Ray bracelet on each wrist, to match his/her tinfoil hat!
Faux News, Drudge, and AM hate radio stumble around and bump their shins worse than Helen Keller after her furniture’s been rearranged. Keep your eyes peeled–you can get Murdoch, Rushbo and the other minions are cooking up another fake like this for Barack Obama. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Remember the so-called “Whitey tape” that Larry Johnson (proud owner of a Shatner PossumPate 3000) claimed to have? We’re still waiting… and waiting… and waiting…
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Jeff,
There is a distinction between MW and myself–MW is a contributor. I am merely a commentor.
And, you’re right. I am biased. I try to see things from both sides but I cannot always be as unbiased as I’d like–I am terribly biased against Bush and unfortunately anything associated with him is going to get a jaundiced tweak.
Sadly, that now means McCain, who was once his opponant but has embraced him. Sadly that means the GOP that has been permeated with his people.
If you knew me 10 years ago, you would have found me right of center. I have not only voted for but also endorsed and worked with Republicans locally.
I don’t belong to a party, but I do have quite a lot of conservative tendencies even still, but the way I see it Bush and the GOP have not only abandoned those conservative principles, they have played people with them as suckers to achieve their ends.
IF I were a Republican Party member, I would be so angry with the majority of party I would vote Democratic. There are a lot of good Republican people and even legislators, but they have been beaten down by the Bushes, Cheneys, Roves and DeLays of this world.
S’funny, 18 months ago, I thought McCain was one of the good people (I voted for him in 2000 primary) but this election season has proven to be a disappointment
In a way, if pressed, I actually agree with a lot of what MW says about divided government, but this election pushed me to the left for two reasons
a) I think that we need drastic, quick change to reverse the Bush years and I wouldn’t mind seeing a 4-year term of total Democrat control
b) I would love to see the GOP power structure utterly destroyed so that the good people I still see in the party can rebuild it based on conservative principles rather than as a powerbase for a select few. I think that a crushing defeat would accomplish that, but a victory or close loss would only prolong its current leadership.
So, I make no apologies for my bias, but I will continue to look at both sides as best I can.
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:50 am
Rob says “Justin I think the time has come to relieve mw of his right to post. Really this is just a completely partisan post.”
ROTFLMAO
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 am
Hey. I’ve been kicked out of better places than this.
Actually that is not true.
This would be best place I’ve been kicked out of so far.
Funny you should mention RedState – I was kicked out of RedState in October 2006. I am DWSUWF in this thread. That was the one that did it. Too liberal I guess.
FWIW – I am decidedly not a partisan, but I am an advocate for particular minority point of view and every POV will be interpreted by those who disagree as partisan. So it goes. I was quite explicit in my first post at Donklephant about exactly where I am coming from, and exactly my intentions while here.
And if Obama supporters want to keep flogging “troopergate”, I got no problem with it. Knock yourself out. Because no matter how you want to spin it, at the bottom of that rabbit hole is this guy. And if you think this works against Palin, you are thinking wrong.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 am
There is no way that someone should be kicked out for their views. He has valid points, even if they are clearly right of center. I don’t fully agree with them: troopergate, while clearly within Palin’s rights, was still kind of a dirty trick. Especially since she didn’t pay him severance pay.
That doesn’t mean that most of these “scandals” are scandals, though. Yes, her husband is a member of the AIP, which is shady. Yes, she did fire a relatively competent commissioner. Yes, she does have a pregnant unwed daughter.
But no, none of these are really big issues, except to low-information voters. They’re all within her rights, clearly not her fault, etc. I’m still more concerned with her hardcore stance against abortion and, you know, the actual issues. Her “scandals” are really more the type of thing you can use in a joke, but not as a serious critique of her ability as a politician. If you want that, talk about how she ran her small town into millions of dollars of debt, stuff like that.
Judge her – and Obama, Biden, and McCain – on the issues. That’s one of the most important things about being a rational, relatively centrist voter.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:59 am
No MW, this is one area where you and many people here completley disagree–and that is perhaps why this issue doesn’t mean as much to you.
When you go down the rabbit hole you find this guy.
http://www.muni.org/apd1/chiefmoneganbio.cfm
That is a decidedly different point of view changer
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:40 am
The guy illegally shot a moose. F*&^king Bastard! You people are coming to the defense of a Moose-killer.
First they came first for the Mooses, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Moose..
Coming to the defense of a first-degree moose murderer…post birth abortions is one thing…but illegally killing a moose…this guy not only deserved to be fired, he should be have been shot on sight.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
No one disagrees that Wooten is a shitbird. He is. End of story.
But he also had his due process with the Alaska State Police. End of story.
If it’s true the governor attempted to use her influence to have Wooten sacked, then that’s a problem regardless of who’s at the bottom of the rabbit hole.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Gerry, I have no quarrel with what you say in your response to me above, aside form the gratuitous initial insult about centrism. To know where I stand, you have to hear what I have to say, not just make assumptions based on my affiliations. Some folks can’t handle that.
What you say makes sense. Indeed, everyone should review the facts of this case as to how they reflect upon Palin’s judgement.
To the extent I am troubled by reporting on this issue, it has mostly to do with sidelong suggestions that because there is an investigation going on, she must therefore be some sort of shady corrupt power-mad character and conversely, the removed employee should be assumed to be a blameless paragon of virtue.
My point here is that thus far I have seen nothing which makes me feel that there is any sort of even semi-serious wrongdoing involved in the “troopergate” story.
When it comes to executive discretion, I understand it. In fact, I’ve defended Barack Obama many many many times from charges that he’s “just like every other politician” because of various political maneuvers he has made. I’m the first person to wish for politicians who behave better and try to rise above partisanship. But I’m also the last to expect politicians NOT to behave as they often must. Any executive (and especially a newly elected executive) can seldom afford to have folks under her send showy signals that they intend to do as they please, practically daring the executive to act in response.
So at this point, my guess is that this boils down to political infighting, and until I see evidence that it amounts to more than that, it ends for me with the understanding that she axed someone she had the authority to axe. The minutiae don’t bother me that much because I view such actions as often politically necessary. Someone below Palin did something to bring this down, and as politics are fought, the tradition often is to try to get even by retaliating with allegations and an investigation.
Unless and until the investigation itself reveals something troubling, I take the fact of this investigation as evidence of nothing. Now, if instead they were investigating something like “why was there 20k in unmarked bills hidden in your freezer” then I’d look at the existence of an investigation differently.
But I’m fine with the approach you describe for yourself.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Geryff,
No problem for me with you being left or right of center. My comment was more aimed at Rob. Sorry if I wasn’t clear about that. If he is going to complain about a given partisan post, why not them all? Whatever the side. Rob says that this site is “…something different.” Not partisan. Yet he appeared to be calling for only the removal of someone he disagreed with.
While I tend to lean to the right a touch, it really depends on the issue/person. I can certainly see where you would have a number of issues with past and current elected officials. I do as well. :)
Personally, I’m for full disclosure about all the candidates voting records, legislation initiated, etc. regardless of party.
Again, sorry if I mischaracterized you. Truly not my intention.
Jeff.
September 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
[...] I said from the beginning of this [...]