Whining About Other Shoes

It looks like Palin probably buys the majority of my speculation about the "other shoe" actually being Axlerod's. Her interview with Time Magazine had these few snippets:

"Enemies stirred up by her sudden prominence — and orchestrated, she believes, by the Obama White House — would bury her in unfounded ethics complaints...."

"For Palin, however, these aren't isolated incidents. She believes they grow from the same root, which is too big and too formidable to ignore.

"A lot of this comes from Washington, D.C. The trail is pretty direct and pretty obvious to us," says Meg Stapleton, a close Palin adviser in Alaska. Awaiting a flight back to Anchorage from distant Dillingham, Stapleton adds that the anti-Palin offensive seems lifted straight from The Thumpin', which describes the political strategies of Rahm Emanuel, who is now the White House chief of staff.

"It's the Sarah Palin playbook. It's how they operate," Stapleton says."

I think the Obama White House, whether directly or indirectly (because there are some there who don't need coercion, they are just simply in love with Obama, not to mention they're jealous of all the attention she's been getting), has also compromised the Alaska legislature, but I won't go into all that again.

And I know that others have speculated about this stuff too, I'm not the only one. I do want to go on record though and say that if I copied anyone else's ideas, it was completely unintentional. All I had to go on was a snippet in the comments of C4P that someone in Alaska said that the Dems nationally had told some legislators to stall all of Palin's priorities.

Everything else was brainstorming and following things to their logical conclusion. I later watched alot of interviews where people said essentially the same thing, but I didn't steal the idea from them.

Now, about the whining thing....

Frank Luntz was on Hannity last night whining about Sarah Palin's "whining," saying that the "American people" didn't want to hear her talk about the ethics complaints.

There were a few things I wanted to scream at the television (and, I may in fact have actually screamed them).

1. "She wasn't talking to you!"

2. "She wasn't talking to you!"

And finally....

3. "She wasn't talking to you!"

To recap....

"She wasn't talking to you!" (If you swear, you may insert an expletive between "wasn't" and "talking.")

These people in the media (and I know Luntz is usually a friend of the Gov, and she can take constructive criticism, so I'm not really mad at him) are complete idiots sometimes.

They think that they are so enlightened...... Drives me out of my mind.

Newsflash: She wasn't talking to the people of America, the Republican party, or to Mr. Frank Luntz's control groups.

She was talking to Alaska. You know, those people who are actually her constituents who might have wanted some explanation as to why she was resigning. You know those people?

Why can nobody see past the end of their national 2012 nose?

And, for the record, there is a very legitimate problem in Alaska with these ethics complaints. Maybe national pundits are completely fine with allowing state resources to go down the drain, as long as your political career remains intact, but Sarah Palin isn't.

If it's between the state government being able to actually get its work done for the people of Alaska and her sitting in the Governor's office, she'll just leave office. And that's exactly what she did.

She puts the state and the people whom she's serving above herself, and that is why she is one of the only politicians in America today who actually deserves to be one.

She really cares about Alaska, and Alaska has a problem that needs to be fixed. If that doesn't jive with what the rest of America "wants to hear"......oh, well. Tough cookies; she's going to say it anyway.

And while I don't think that it's an effective strategy going forward for Palin to constantly talk about the ethics complaints, I think the complaints are honestly a big reason why she resigned, and this isn't a woman who quite frankly cares about what Frank Luntz's focus groups think.

She's just going to tell the truth. Whatever happens beyond that, happens.

One Crazy 4th

Sarah, I'll make you a deal. I'll donate money to SarahPac and you never scare me like that again. How does that sound?

Of course, I know it'll never happen. One thing you know when you jump on the bandwagon with Sarah is that there are bound to be a few twists and turns, so just hold on tight and have a little faith.

I don't know how your weekend went, but here's a rundown of mine:

Friday, around 2:00 in the afternoon, Central Time, my Aunt called me up.

Aunt: "Are you watching Fox News?"
Me: "No."
Aunt: "Sarah's going to make some sort of announcement."
Me. "Thanks, bye!" (Rush to the TV, make sure I'm taping it, turn on FoxNews and watch with a growing knot in my stomach as they speculate on her announcment.)

TV: "Sources say that she will not seek a second term."

Phew, okay. I can deal with that.

TV: "Wait a minute, now sources say that she may be resigning."

What!

At this juncture the knots turned into sailboats and a panic attack nearly came on. (I'm exagerrating, but only slightly.)

I believe my coherent thoughts were: "I'm gonna be sick, I'm gonna be sick, I'm gonna be sick..."

Followed by a few prayers: "Please don't let her quit, please don't let her quit, please don't let her quit...."

And then as confirmation came down that she was in fact resigning, the anger began to seep in, not at her, but at a system that would destroy such a good person. There were whispered vows to carry on in her name and an image of saluting a fallen general.

And then Fox News finally got the tape of her speech.

I should have learned by now to never take the media's word for anything when it comes to Sarah Palin. As I listened to her speak, the knot in my stomach began to slowly untie itself. I realized that she was not quitting; she was saying, "Forget the frying pan, show me the fire!"

We've all heard the cliches by now:

"She declared her independence."
"She has crossed the Rubicon, etc..."

Cliches they may be, but they're true.

This was an amazing act of courage, faith, and yes, even selflessness. I believe that she truly loves Alaska, and if you think for one minute that this was an easy decision for her to make, you're insane.

And just a sidenote here, don't think for one minute that she hasn't set Alaska up beautifully through this. How? Allow me to explain:

1. She has handed things off to people who share her exact same vision and who are loyal to her, so policy-wise nothing will really change.

2. She has taken the partisan political heat off the state that was directed at her and was rubbing off on the taxpayers.

3. She has set up Parnell and Campbell (both excellent guys who love her to death) as incumbents for the next election, thus avoiding a 2010 free-for-all in the state.

4. As she pursues her national voice she will continue to push for things like ANWR development and off-shore drilling.

She did Alaskans a huge favor on Friday, though many don't even know it yet.

Her critics are celebrating her demise and the political pundits are spinning as fast as they can the idea that she'll never be able to come back from this.

Garbage.

Let the Beltway Boys say she's done and let the critics think they've won, but something shifted on July 3rd, 2009. Sarah Palin threw down the gauntlet, and a new chapter began.

She burned her bridges. She can't go back now. Nowhere to go but forward. And I say, "Bring it on!"

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.