The river of information about Sarah Palin continues to trickle out to Americans.
Alaska governor and McCain runningmate Sarah Palin was a convention-going member of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), a political organization dedicated to the following propositions (thanks to georgia10’s diary at Daily Kos):
- A belief that “the vote for statehood was invalid because the people were not presented with the range of options available to them” and that “the federal government has since breached the contract for statehood on numerous occasions in over a dozen serious and substantial instances.”
- A belief that there should be a vote on Alaskan secession.
- Remaining “steadfastly opposed to environmental regulations and actively promotes the private ownership and widespread development of Alaskan land.”
- A platform which includes:
[A]mending the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.
[F]oster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.
[S]eek[ing] the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska[.]
This is all confirmed by ABC News.
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which since the 1970s has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.
And while McCain’s motto — as seen in a new TV ad — is “Country First,” the AIP’s motto is the exact opposite — “Alaska First — Alaska Always.”
Now, yes, people can change their minds. And perhaps Palin did.
But this continues a disturbing pattern. For instance, she also changed her mind about the “Bridge to Nowhere,” a bridge-building project funded by the Congress.
During her first speech after being named as McCain’s surprise pick as a running mate, Palin said she had told Congress “‘thanks but no thanks’ on that bridge to nowhere.”
In the city Ketchikan, the planned site of the so-called “Bridge to Nowhere,” political leaders of both parties said the claim was false and a betrayal of their community, because she had supported the bridge and the earmark for it secured by Alaska’s Congressional delegation during her run for governor.
The bridge, a span from the city to Gravina Island, home to only a few dozen people, secured a $223 million earmark in 2005. The pricey designation raised a furor and critics, including McCain, used the bridge as an example of wasteful federal spending on politicians’ pet projects.
What else is going to come out about Palin? And how does this possibly help McCain’s message of “Country first,” when she stood for changing the composition of the country? That didn’t throw him off?
September 2, 2008 at 7:59 pm |
[...] While they might be selling it as a “gut” decision he made, perhaps his campaign is covering up the fact that it didn’t live up to it’s own “patriotic” motto. They caved to the Religious Right, placing party first, and in the process, they picked a candidate who, at one time, was “Alaska first.” [...]
September 3, 2008 at 11:24 am |
This is an outright lie and you have opted to leave certain parts of the ABC News’ story, such as these statements:
“Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, told ABC News on Monday that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.
This, it should be noted, does not square with official records.
Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, “Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time.”
Clark on Tuesday night said that she had been mistaken.”
“Lynette Clark says that Palin is “a fine individual. She’s forthright and she puts Alaska first.”
She is not a fan of McCain.
“I can’t understand why in God’s name she has aligned herself with a candidate who opposes the development of our republic and Alaska’s resource wealth,” Clark says.”
It sounds to me that Lynette Clark has a little bone to pick with her opposition to McCain, thus the lie…and you have furthered it on your blog. You should be ashamed of yourself!
September 3, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
Just because she was a registered Republican since 1982 doesn’t mean that her association with — and her husband’s participation in — the Alaska Independence Party isn’t news.
Fine, Clark was a political enemy of McCain and wanted him to look bad. As far as I can see, your comment doesn’t address Palin or her husband actually attending the 1994 convention or associating with the party.
And yes — she apparently DOES put Alaska first. If McCain puts the country first, why would he invite Palin — who associates with those who place Alaska above the country — to run with him? The obvious answer is that McCain doesn’t put the country first either; he thought that he could showboat his “correct” stance on the war with someone like Ridge or Lieberman when he caved to the Religious Right and went another way in his runningmate selection.
September 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
And here’s some more juicy information: http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/382518085/8092