Sarah's Side of the Story

In light of the recent "revelations" by Schmidt and others, I thought I'd let Sarah tell her side of things. From Going Rogue, starting on page 279:
-----------

Mark sequestered a small debate prep team in a hotel room with the curtains drawn, blotting out the sunlight. My experience had taught me that you can work well with a diverse team, even people you don't know, if you make the atmosphere upbeat and positive. Whoever was leading this team, though, turned it into a high-pressure penalty box.

I understood the stakes. I knew that the McCain ticket was on the ropes and that top campaign staffers were unnerved. I got that. But I had a different perspective than some of the principals on the team as to how we should deal with this reality.

We were all wired pretty much the same way - intense and focused - but when things weren't going well, the last thing I wanted to do was sit in a darkened room and hear strange people yelling at one another.....

During debate prep, I had been given stacks of five-by-eight index cards....It was funny because on one side of each card, there was a question and on the other side there were a whole bunch of what most people would consider nonanswers:

FRONT OF CARD: What will it take to win the war in Afghanistan?

BACK OF CARD: The world is better off for the fact that the Taliban no longer rules Afghanistan.
I said to the prep people, "Okay, but what they're asking is, what will it take to win the war?"

"Right," somebody said. "But you don't have to answer the question....."

The bottom line is these were political answers - and I couldn't force myself to play it safe and sound like a politician. On top of that, there were probably ten cards for every single topic with a different set of nonanswers on every one. So in the end I'm thinking - Okay, which nonanswer do you want me to give?

Or here's an idea - I could give a real answer....

I kept a stack of the cards as a souvenir. I wish I had kept them all because I scribbled a lot of notes in the margins, probably some not fit for public consumption....

I liked my simpler style because it meant I never had to spin, I never had to B.S., and, good or bad, I never had to struggle to remember what I had said the last time....

What I should've said was, "Look, I get it. Our numbers aren't good, this debate is a big deal, but this stuffy, dark hotel room with a bunch of crabby guys isn't working. So get some fresh air and let's come back and tackle this with clear minds...."

All I needed to hear was what John's position was on any particular issue. Then I could either formulate a response that would support it wholeheartedly or carefully articulate my own slightly different perspective....

[After Steve Schmidt suggests that flying in a nutritionist for Sarah will solve everything, Sarah sits there and thinks to herself] -

I'm a forty-four-year-old, healthy, athletic woman raising five kids and governing a large state. Sir, I really don't know you yet. But you've told me how to dress, what to say, who to talk to, a lot of people not to talk to, who my heroes are supposed to be, and we're still losing. Now you're going to tell me what to eat?....

[After the transfer of debate prep to McCain's ranch] -

During rehearsals, I accidentally called Randy "Senator O'Biden" - a slip-of-the-lip combination of Obama and Biden. The blunder struck too often, even tripping up campaign staffers. (Jay Leno later made the same slip on his new talk show, so we were in good company.) We laughed about it but knew that if I said it even once during the debates, it would be disastrous.

Then somebody said, "You ought to just call him Joe."

"Oh, I can't just call him Joe!" I said. Senator Biden was a senior statesman. He'd been sitting in the U.S. Senate since I was nine years old. I believed calling him by his first name without his permission would be disrespectful.

Randy seemed to read my thoughts and offered a solution. "In every debate, you cross the stage and shake hands with your opponent," he said. "When you shake hands, just as him for permission to call him Joe. He's certainly going to say yes, because he's a gentleman."

So that's what we decided to do. We had no idea my mic would already be hot when I walked onstage, crossed over to his turf, and said, "Can I call you Joe?"

The "expert" postdebate analysis was that my question was a cleverly devised strategy to disarm my opponent. Yeah, right....

Now, my friends and family sure knew the truth....And those campaign folks, especially those who had vetted and chosen me, also knew the truth. But as the story grew legs, they didn't lift a finger to correct the record. I couldn't understand why until I realized that by the end of the campaign, the wardrobe fairy tale had become convenient. By then, with Obama soaring and our own ticket in free fall, one or two of the campaign's big dogs were already packing their parachutes....

[Randy confronted Schmidt at the end of the campaign] -

Randy finished reading the story. "I don't believe this!" he yelled. "Those guys have gone too far this time!"

It may not be unusual for major-ticket advisors to struggle internally over who calls the shots, or to offer only tepid public support to one half of the ticket or the other, Randy later told me. But it is unheard of for campaign staffers to brazenly throw a candidate under the bus with sleazy anonymous comments.

Randy stormed toward Schmidt's office and confronted his secretary. "Where is he? I want his cell number right now....."

Randy slammed the door and told Steve what he really thought. "It is unbelievable that advisers - senior advisers - are calling the press and telling them the vice presidential candidate is a diva! This is unprecedented! It's unacceptable!...."

Randy laid out a very simple case: "Picking a running mate was John's most important decision, and being loyal to John means being loyal to his pick. That makes what's going on absolutely atrocious!"

Schmidt started in again, telling Randy what an awful pick I was - the "postpartum" problems, the wardrobe "scandal," "legal exposure" for Todd on Troopergate, whatever he meant by that. Somehow the Palins were responsible for all of the campaign's problems.

"That is absolutely outrageous!" Randy said. He started to walk out of the office, but Schmidt issued a threat that was veiled enough for deniability but clear as day if you were on the receiving end: if there were any more leaks critical of anybody in the handling of Sarah Palin, then a lot more negative stuff would be said about Sarah Palin....

At the time, I was just focused on finishing strong. I want to believe the tension between Schmidt and the B Team was a result of less-than-ideal circumstances in the pressure cooker of a national campaign, and that it wasn't personal. But as I realized back in my Wasilla mayor days, life is too short to hold a grudge. If I ever see Schmidt again, maybe I'll bring him a white Peace Lily.

Palin was "Mentally Limited"

Okay, I'm going to try to be fair about this whole 60 Minutes thing. First off, it is absolutely hilarious that 60 Minutes does a huge interview with numerous staffers about an irrelevant private citizen.

Secondly, I don't think that they were necessarily sitting down just to trash Palin. Did they try to make her the scapegoat after the campaign? Oh, yeah. Listen to this interview Palin gave to the Bob and Mark Show right after the election. You can hear the transformation in her voice as she begins to realize that she's the one who's going to be thrown under the bus. "It's flippin' bizarre...." Listen to all three parts. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head which part it's in.

I say this in defense of the McCain aides - they had no idea what they were getting into. The vetters knew Palin's record, etc.... but the aides weren't in on all of that. Well, Schmidt was in on some of it.

The communication in the campaign was horrible. And Palin is not a typical politician. She probably did blindside the junk out of them and scare them to death in some cases. They didn't know her. They didn't know how to deal with her. Not to mention the campaign was full of people who had vendettas and a pessimism to beat the band.

Oh, well. Their loss:)

You know what cracks me up? Schmidt complaining about how the staffers had to mop up Palin's "messes" like her statements on the Troopergate thing.

How long has this guy been working on campaigns? Hello! This is what staffers do. Candidates say stuff and staffers scramble.

I wonder how many staffers scrambled when Joe Biden talked about how he likes to go to a restaurant that's been closed for years and years.

I wonder how many staffers scrambled when Michelle Obama said that this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud of her country.

I wonder how many staffers scrambled when Barack Obama said there were 57 states (actually 58 - he had one more to go).

Schmitty - do us all a favor and grow up.

Leaving Schmidt aside, check this douchebag out:



Well, looks like that "mentally limited" VP candidate is going to outsmart all of you.

Maybe this was part of her devious plan all along. "I'll get on as VP and then I'll blow it! Hahahahahaha! And then I'll come back and beat the tar out of all of their sorry butts! Hahahahahaha! I'll blow the Couric interview to make them think I'm stupid; that way they will constantly underestimate me and never guess how smart I am! Hahahahahahaha!"

Schmitty Wanna Diaper?

Doesn't Steve Schmidt look like a ginormous baby?

Have I mentioned lately that I hate the media? I really, really hate the media.

All of these stories popping up now about whatever "revelations" Schmitty has for 60 minutes do one thing - convince me that the media that critiqued and commented on Palin's book never, ever read it. This stuff is all in there if they had bothered to look.

I don't much care what the classless piece of "schmidt" has to say. All I know is that his face or the mere mention of his name awakens an irresistable primal urge to knee somebody.

Preferably him.

What's She So Angry About?

Oh, Schmitty. Whassa matter? Can't take what you dish out (lip quiver)?

Steve Schmidt, who managed the campaign and is a chief target in the book, doesn't think much of "Going Rogue."....Schmidt gave his verdict on the book, due in stores Tuesday, in an interview with me: "It's total fiction," he said. Just to address some of the claims: Trevor Potter, the campaign's counsel, told The Atlantic that the campaign did not bill Palin for vetting. Schmidt told me it's "not true" that he used an obscenity in front of Piper. As for the $150,000 tab for Palin family clothes and accessories, "Her account talks about the fact that she was resistant to all this stuff. That's just not true," one campaign aide told me. This aide's take: "The book fully reveals her. Dishonest, small and petty."

....The aides themselves are both shocked and not shocked."People knew that's what she was like" but they are nevertheless incredulous that she published a book like this, one of them told me. "It's like, 'What's she so angry about?' She was picked to be vice president of the United States. She had an exceptional opportunity. Everything is someone else's fault. There's no accountability. It's mean-spirited. But if you look at the record, it is what it is."

And then the article goes on to cite the AP "fact-checking" article that has been proven to be way off base and the Huffington Post. I know, I know. Shocking, isn't it? We know for a fact that she did complain about the clothes and was in no way responsible for the $150,000 bill. Even Palin's enemies have admitted that. So, Schmitty just lost any last shred of credibility.

What's she so angry about?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe that you guys called her a whack job, among other things, and leaked to the press about her like the little sissies that you are. She kept this stuff under her hat - you guys were the ones that went whining to Carl Cameron. It's not uncommon for there to be tension between the P and the VP teams; what's uncommon is for staffers to whine to the media about their own candidate. Just proves to me that you cared more about your own political skin than you did about winning.

Douchebags.

And I have to say, I thought that Palin was gracious to the McCain staffers in the book. She was neither small nor petty. Of course, you would have to actually read the book to know that. Contrary to the media reports that make it sound like she hates the world, Palin was extremely good-humored and even made some excuses for the actions of the McCain staffers. The media line that she's out for blood is a myth. Read the book for yourself if you don't believe me. It's nothing like the media is painting it. It is candid, to the point, and funny. Really funny. The lady has a sense of humor.

"Killer shrubs!"

If you read it, you'll know what that means:)

You Smell That? It's Called Fear.

The Party Boys just can't help themselves. More Palin-bashing here. All of this talk about Palin not being able to cut it will not discourage her. Don't ever tell Sarah Palin she can't do something; she'll work her tail off to prove you wrong and then turn around and rub your face in it. She seems to thrive on underdog status. You're just putting her right in the middle of her element.

Why are the Party Boys doing this? Fear. She is the biggest threat, not only to the liberal agenda, but to their power. She has the ability to eclipse them. Her presence makes them unnecessary, if not irrelevant. The most telling statement from John Weaver: McCain's closest political adviser for much of the past decade, said that he was nearly certain that the former governor would never be the Republican nominee and added that, if she was, "it would surely mean a political apocalypse is upon us."

Amen, Amen. Preach it, brother, preach it! If she succeeds, it will mean the end of their little power circle. That's why they despise her: she's a threat.

Final Word to the Party Boys

Okay, here's my last word to Lindsay Graham, Steve Schmidt, and all the other Party Boys:

You all claim that Sarah Palin won't be the nominee, and if she is, she'll be a disaster. A disaster how? What's the worst that could happen? We lose? Hello! We just lost. The GOP couldn't be more irrelevant right now. The very people spouting about how Palin is a disaster, are disasters themselves. If you're not going to be a conservative, just be a Democrat. If there's no difference, what's the difference? What have we got to lose?

Emails and the Alaska Independence Party

I find myself in an odd position (I'll explain later).

Which, if any, of these statements do you disagree with?

1. All political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual.

2. All persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry.

3. All persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law.

On board so far?

Good. What are the above statments? They are the preamble to the platform and goals of the Alaska Independence Party.

Here are some of their specific goals and tenants:

1. To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.

2. To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.

And a whole bunch of other things like gun rights, abolishing property taxes, etc...

Here is the link to their platform and goals. You will notice that there is no mention of secession.

I find myself in the strange position of having to defend the Alaska Independence Party.

Why?

Because of the emails that have surfaced between Palin and Schmidt about whether or not Todd was a believing member of that party.

Now, the Left would have you believe that the AIP is some radical, secessionist group that hates America.

On the contrary. I think they're closer to loving the principles of America than Washington D.C. is at this point.

They clearly state in their platform that they support the United States Constitution along with Alaska's. They are not a lawless, nuke-happy organization.

Now, I don't agree with all their tenants, and I doubt Todd does either, which is why the Palins say he registered as AIP by mistake. The AIP appears to lean libertarian, and I don't agree with all aspects of libertarianism, but there are some parts of it that are dead on. I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Now, given the position that the AIP takes on the Constitution and the blatant disregard that the federal government seems to have for the Constitution these days, it would naturally follow that the AIP doesn't rule out secession.

As I've said before, good. That's that good old, independent spirit that said, "If Britain's going to ignore the law and push tyranny down our throats, we're not going to be part of Britain anymore."

Folks, that's not hating America. That's about as American as you can get.

So all this talk about whether or not Todd believed in the AIP, I believe, doesn't really matter anyway.

But since it is now a topic, let's investigate a little further.

As I've stated before, Sarah Palin alleged that Todd registered as part of the AIP by mistake, thinking that he was registering as Independent. Sarah Palin said in her emails to Schmidt that he caught his mistake when they moved and changed his party registration then.

Okay, let's break down the facts:

Todd was registered as a member of the AIP from 1995 to 2002, when he changed his registration. That's seven years, just like Sarah Palin said in her email to Schmidt (see the post below for the emails).

It is also worth noting that Sarah Palin registered as Republican her whole life.

As for the voter registration form itself, I couldn't find a pdf of a 1995 version of the form (I don't know if it has changed since then or not), but here's the current format:

You'll note that just plain "Independent" is not on the form, and Non-partisan and Undeclared are listed further down. If Todd just skimmed the form without looking too closely, I can see how it would be easy to check the wrong box. Inattentive, perhaps, but hardly scandalous.

Sarah Palin described the option in her email to Schmidt as "Alaska Independent." Again, I don't know if the 1995 registration form was different or the same, so I have no idea if she is lying, misremembering, or telling the truth. Remembering exactly what a piece of paper said that you didn't even sign from seven years prior is quite a feat anyway.

Before 2000, Alaska had blanket primaries where party affiliation didn't have anything to do with who you voted for, so if you made a mistake you would never have known it.

In 2002, the Palins moved to their current home in Wasilla. You only have to register to vote once, but when you move, you must change your address on the registration form. When they moved and went to change their addresses, Todd Palin checked a different box.

Now, as I've said, I don't really have any bone to pick with the AIP anyway. But I don't see any evidence that either one of the Palins are anything but Republicans. If Sarah Palin wanted to secede from the union, she wouldn't be so all-fired anxious to get the Trans-Canada pipeline built. She would be focused on the All-Alaska gasline, which is what Wally Hickel (who once ran on the AIP ticket) wanted her to focus on.

And then some have said, "Well, she went to the AIP convention in 2000."

Yes, and where was the AIP convention held in 2000? That's right, in Wasilla.

She was mayor; going to the convention was just a polite thing to do as part of her job. (For the record, she was registered as Republican at the time.)

Now, many members of the AIP support Sarah Palin. But it would be nearly impossible for this not to be the case since the AIP is the largest third party of any of the states.

Having said that, I think it's obvious that Sarah Palin (beyond the more obvious things like a firm belief in the Constitution and states' rights) does not adhere to many ideals of the AIP. If she did, she wouldn't have run for Vice President of the United States.

I would even go so far as to say she probably doesn't like the element of the party that does advocate secession, since she referred to the party in her email as "anti-American."

As Governor, she taped this video message for the AIP. In it she clearly referred to them as another party with different ideas and competing interests and that it was healthy to hear all voices in the debate, including theirs.

What on earth is wrong with those statements?

Some members of the AIP claim that Sarah Palin was a member of the party before she was mayor in 1996, but her registration records prove that she was Republican all the way from 1984 (in 1984, Sarah Palin was 20; it was also the first Presidential election year in which she could vote).

She does tend to lean a little libertarian, which is why, I think, most members of the AIP love her and some like to claim her as one of their own.

In conclusion, the Palins are not radicals, the AIP is not radical, and the Palins very much love the United States of America and haven't given up on it just yet. It's really no big deal, but people will grasp at any straw they can these days.

The AIP and the Band-Aid

The Vanity Fair piece is shedding alot of light onto the inner workings of the McCain campaign and its staffers, and I say, good. The more we know about these weasels, the better.

Many things have hit the fan, but I want to address two right now: Todd's involvement with the Alaska Independence Party, and Andrew Sullivan's fascination with Sarah Palin's band-aid.

First up, the AIP.

Some emails sent between Palin and Steve Schmidt about the question of Todd's registration with the AIP have surfaced. Here is Sarah Palin concerned with accusations about her husband being a member of the AIP:

"Pls get in front of that ridiculous issue that's cropped up all day today - two reporters, a protestor's sign, and many shout-outs all claiming Todd's involvement in an anti-American political party," Palin wrote. "It's bull, and I don't want to have to keep reacting to it ... Pls have statement given on this so it's put to bed."

Schmidt's response:

"Ignore it," he wrote. "He was a member of the aip? My understanding is yes. That is part of their platform. Do not engage the protestors. If a reporter asks say it is ridiculous. Todd loves america."

Palin's answer:

"That's not part of their platform and he was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan," Palin wrote. "He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed."

And Schmidt's (long) reply:

"Secession," he wrote. "It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site.

Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction.

According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this."

Palin did not reply, and no statement was issued.

For the record, I couldn't care less if Todd were a proud member of the AIP. Most, if not all bodies of land not directly attached to the Lower 48 (and some that are) have independence movements (Guam, Hawaii, etc...).

And the frustration level that would lead to advocating secession is understandable considering that no one in Washington wants to listen to Alaska on issues like ANWR and insists on telling them what they can and can't do with their own resources.

Many feel disenfranchised and unrepresented in Washington. This leads to that good old, independent spirit that led our founding fathers to cut themselves off from Great Britain.

There is nothing wrong with that spirit, if anything, it's healthy. It shows an aversion to tyranny and a longing to be free and to make decisions for yourself. It doesn't mean you're a radical wacko who wants to nuke the Pentagon.

The CBS article where I got the emails suggests that Palin lied about what the voter registration form actually said, and I don't know. I have never seen a voter registration form from Alaska, especially not from the year Todd registered. I don't even know what year that was, so I'm not going to go into that. It was at least seven years ago, and we can't remember every detail. I don't remember everything that happened yesterday, so, I don't really care about that part.

Now, if I were an actual journalist I would look up all of those things, but I'm not getting paid, so I don't really care. If it becomes an issue, I'll stretch myself. Beyond that...

Two points:

1. How many times does Schmidt think you register to vote? Annually?

If you made a mistake on your registration form (as in, thinking you were registering as Independent, but in fact as a member of the AIP), why would you change it? As far as you know, it's correct.

And if you think it's correct (I don't look at my initial voter registration every year to make sure it's still good) you will naturally just go along thinking all is well.

It wouldn't be until you had to change something on that form or redo your registration (like when you move and get a new address) that you would catch the problem and correct it, which is exactly what Sarah Palin said happened.

2. The problem with Schmidt is that he believed the accusations.

Schmidt was not in Palin's corner. He believed the accusations that Todd was a secessionist, etc... (Which, again, even if he was, I don't care). So rather than feel compelled to go out and correct the supposed misconception, his advice to Palin was to simply gloss it over with a smile and a non-answer.

Oh, that worked out real well. To this day there are questions swirling around this issue. The right thing to do would have been to find out all of the facts and to present them. Period.

Okay, enough of the Schmidt clown, on to the band-aid.


Andrew Sullivan in the Daily Dish seems real concerned with Sarah Palin's truthfulness. The most pressing thing on his mind today?

Her band-aid. (Yes, her band-aid.)

In her interview with Runner's World (which is an awesome interview, by the way) she said that she swore her security detail to secrecy and thought that no one knew about how she cut her hand while running.

Sullivan writes:

"I keenly remember watching the news the day of the big VP debate. I remembered as she came down the stairs off the plane in St. Louis that she had the bandage on the palm of her hand as she waved, and the newscaster told how she had injured her hand in a fall while running."

Notice that his accusation is not that she lied about her story, but that she lied about how many people knew about the story.

What?

That's not a lie, that's not knowing how many people knew about the story (like I've said before, she was in a bubble during the campaign). If this is an example of how dishonest Sarah Palin is, she's got nothing to worry about.

These people who claim they hate Palin so much, I actually think are obsessed with her. Only someone with an obsession would pick on something as innocuous as a band-aid.