« Republicans in Minnesota Party Through Gustav | Main | Backgound on Palin's Troopergate - August 13 News Report »

More Palin Poo - AIP and Buchanan

I've really got to believe that the McCain people DID NOT do their homework on Palin. The Palin Poo Pile just keeps getting deeper and deeper the more digging that's done.

First -- Palin and the McCain campaign have flat-out denied that Palin had any involvement with the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) - a bona-fide political party formed in Alaska for the expressed purpose of having Alaska secede from the union.

Kinda throws a wrench in the whole "Country First" banner/meme running across the Republican National Convention stage -- when the VP is supporting a movement that puts Alaska first, and the U.S. second...

Of course John McCain and Sarah Palin denied Palin was involved in the AIP.

Of course there is plenty of evidence that they are lying:

Members of 'Fringe' Alaskan Independence Party Say Palin Was a Member in 90s

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."

After refraining from commenting on the charge for a day, the McCain campaign on Tuesday asserted that Palin was never a member of the AIP.

But Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News 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.

[Update: The Associated Press has now confirmed that Palin's husband Todd twice registered as a member of the AIP.]

and now this:

Another AIP Official Says Palin Was at 1994 Convention

An intense "she said"/"she said" has emerged over whether Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was ever a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, the third-largest political party in the 49th state. The AIP wants Alaskans to get an opportunity to vote on whether or not they will remain a state, or become a commonwealth, or split off as an independent nation.

Officials of the AIP say Palin was once a member, but the McCain campaign -- providing what it says is complete voter registration documentation -- says Palin has been according to official records a lifelong Republican.

(Which to be honest seems more in keeping with the ambitious pol. Republicans have a much better track record than the AIP. And 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.")

As part of their pushback against the charges of Lynette and Dexter Clark of the AIP, the McCain campaign says that Palin did not even attend the AIP convention in Wasilla in 1994.

But another former AIP official -- Mark Chryson, chairman of the AIP from 1995 to 2002 -- tells ABC News that "Palin was at the convention in 1994. She was there."

So she attended the convention but didn't inhale? She attended the convention but wasn't a member?

Second: Just when you thought it couldn't get any uglier - it's time to cue conservative icon Pat Buchannan:

McCain Camp Denies that Sarah Palin was a Member of the Buchanan Brigades in the 1990s:

The evidence is the following, as first noticed by "The Nation": in an Associated Press story from July 17, 1999, titled, "Buchanan takes conservative message to Fairbanks."

"Pat Buchanan brought his conservative message of a smaller government and an America First foreign policy to Fairbanks and Wasilla on Friday as he continued a campaign swing through Alaska....In Wasilla, Buchanan took some shots at the "Republican establishment," saying it was willing to cast aside conservative ideals in a zeal to ensure the nomination for Bush. 'I'm hoping the people of Alaska will disagree that we need a candidate anointed by Washington, D.C.,' he said to a group of three dozen supporters. Among those sporting Buchanan buttons were Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin and state Sen. Jerry Ward, R-Anchorage."

Palin wrote to the AP that her presence at the rally and her wearing a Buchanan button were merely ways to welcome Buchanan to Wasilla, not endorsements of his candidacy.

But that's not quite how Buchanan remembers it.

Buchanan told Chris Matthews yesterday that Palin "was a brigader in 1996 as was her husband, Chris, they were at a fundraiser for me, she's a terrific gal, she's a rebel reformer."

Palin doesn't lie as well as the other Republicans, and should have been disqualified from the VP position on that basis alone.

They are imploding - the GOP is in a full-force meltdown.

The decision to select Palin was 100% John McCain.

If McCain knew about this crap and selected her anyway, it's the equivalent of political Hari-Kari - if they didn't know, why the hell not?

These are the clowns that want to run this country into the ground for another four years?


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 2.6/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 2.6/5 (12 votes cast)


Comments (23)

Former alcoholic Glen Beck just described himself as "White Trash" on CNN to Wolf Blitzer and said that an awful lot of Americans are also "White Trash" in describing a defense to Sarah Palin's family. Couple these "White Trash" family values with Palin's kooky far right politics and you have the very worst vp selection in some years.

For my money, that was really some defense coming from Glen Beck.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Next we'll see one or more unnamed Wizbang female bloggers claiming that their 17 year old daughter is pregnant - lol.

Larry:


It works like this; The one who wins is the one who is considered the most in touch. In other words, elitist looses because there are NOT enough elitist votes to carry the Electoral College. Obama kicked Hillary's arse because he was more in touch with those who go to Dem Caucuses than Hillary. He is also more in touch with the media elite (most of them). That approach won't work in the general election and he knows it. First and formost, Obama IS a politician, Chicago style. He will adapt. Just always remember, don't fall in love with a politician, he/she will break your heart and pick your wallet.

Rich:

I am trying to see where this is a bad thing. If she was at the convention and her husband was the member,could she not have been going with her spouse? Personally I would rather believe her. I know you would not and will not.
You guys keep digging and digging and find weaker and weaker points. The funniest part is the weaker it is,the more you predict the doom of the republican party and all conservatives. What are you smoking?

Yes, it's suspicious but I suggest caution pushing Palin being a member of AIP until there's real documentation. Also, critics should be careful not to dump on her too much, there could be a sympathy backlash.

OK, here's some news apparently showing more decisively that Sarah Palin was not a member of AIP:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9535_palin_alaskan_independence_party_connection.html
But if the party leaders are so ditzy they keep changing stories about whether a prominent person like the Governor was really a member, that isn't very complimentary. But maybe SP really was after all, and someone "got to them"? - offbeat speculation.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

I've alaready seen signs of conservative women trying to paint Palin as a victim here.

Palin has been brought to the main stage with no prior hint from McCain -- if he'd been hinting at Palin previously then the vetting would have been taking place for months - but it was John McCain's big surprise, and surprise - there is a big flurry of "who is she" and "why her?" that is all the result of John McCain's choice on rolling this out as a surprise.

She attended the AIP convention.

The Chair of AIP says she was a member.

But Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News 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.

and McCain says:

As part of their pushback against the charges of Lynette and Dexter Clark of the AIP, the McCain campaign says that Palin did not even attend the AIP convention in Wasilla in 1994.

So somebody is stretching the truth --

BPG:

Lee,

I would suspect any source you're using for this little tidbit to be 'stretching the truth'. Something the MoveOn crowd is quite good at.

Ryan:

I hear Blah, blah, blah rebuttal from the right. So, was she there or wasn't she? If she wasn't officialy a member, was her husband, "the first dude"? Tell me, I'm all ears.

Ray H.:

Apparently another fabrication you all have ran with and blown completely out of proportion. Guess you'll have to go find another lie to spread all over the place.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/?scp=2&sq=alaska%20independence&st=cse

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

Fabrication? - we quoted what the Chair of the AIP said.

Where's the fabrication?

Paul Duffau:

Fabrication? - we quoted what the Chair of the AIP said.

Where's the fabrication?

It's not a fabrication. Just poorly sourced and wrong.

Is it too much to expect that you will apologize for calling them liars? After all, they did not lie on this issue as you bluntly stated.


Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

It's not poorly sourced and wrong - it's a direct quote. Clarke was mistaken - she now claims after being taking back to the woodshed.

Nonethless, Palin did attend the convention. Why?

And Palin lied about her involvement with Buchannan, which was the source of my concern in the post above.

Palin wrote to the AP that her presence at the rally and her wearing a Buchanan button were merely ways to welcome Buchanan to Wasilla, not endorsements of his candidacy.

But that's not quite how Buchanan remembers it.

Buchanan told Chris Matthews yesterday that Palin "was a brigader in 1996 as was her husband, Chris, they were at a fundraiser for me, she's a terrific gal, she's a rebel reformer."

To my knowledge this is still a matter of contention with Buchanan, and there's nothing I need apologize for...

But I'll be happy to consider future apologies once Ray H. apologizes for calling my post a "fabrication" - or is this not a two-way street?

Paul Duffau:

Lee,

You used a single source that was incorrect. she has not been a member of the AIP but her husband was - not unbelievable.

You flatly called her a liar on this particular point.

The same people that you relied on for erroneous information are pushing the idea that she was at the 1994 convention.

And, seriously, wearing a Buchanan button is a full endorsement of a candidate? Saying nice things to a visiting candidate is also an endorsement?

So your two primary sources for the article are either mistaken or a anti-semitic nutcase.

And Ray H. didn't say that you were fabricating anything. You did however publish another person fabrication and then try to spin it negatively. I understand that's your prerogitive as a blogger but when your legs get cut out from under you by bad sources, how hard is it to say, "Hey the folks were relied on for accurate info weren't accurate. Our apologies for providing misteaken info.

Now, let's discuss Palin's position on..."

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"You used a single source that was incorrect. she has not been a member of the AIP but her husband was - not unbelievable.

You flatly called her a liar on this particular point.

No, I said there was evidence that she was lying, and quoted the evidence - the Chairman of the AIP's statement. Nothing I wrote was factually incorrect. The quote was accurate.

"The same people that you relied on for erroneous information are pushing the idea that she was at the 1994 convention."

If Clarke was wrong about Palin's membership - you want us to believe that she was automatically wrong about Palin's attendence at the convention?

Let's stick with the facts as they are known, and not leap to assumptions as you have, Paul. Clarke has not changed her tune with regards to Palin attending the convention.

"And, seriously, wearing a Buchanan button is a full endorsement of a candidate? Saying nice things to a visiting candidate is also an endorsement?"

Ye, wearing a button is an endorsement of the candidate, Paul.

And you're conveniently ignoring Buchanan's statement:

Buchanan told Chris Matthews yesterday that Palin "was a brigader in 1996 as was her husband, Chris, they were at a fundraiser for me, she's a terrific gal, she's a rebel reformer."

I'd say wearing his button and attending a fundraiser for the guy definitely puts Palin in bed with that anti-semitic nutcase, Paul - thanks for asking...

Paul Duffau:

Lee,

You're engaging in sophistry. The difference between "she's a liar" and "there is evidence that she's lying" in naught other than the second is a passive aggressive approach to saying what you mean. You used the quote as evidence. This guote is incorrect. Your conclusion about the evidence thus is also incorrect.

You rely on a second quote by the same individuals to support attendence at the convention. Who knows, she may have been there along with her husband. At this point in time, we do not have evidence. At best, you have heresay.

I just put on a Ron Paul button. Am I now (or have I ever been) a Ron Paul supporter? No. But by your reasoning, I am. I have also showed up at rallies for various candidates. I support one (who unfortunately is no longer in the running) but not the others. On at least two occassions I was given buttons and I wore them at the event. Neither was so odious an individual that I would refuse to.

At best, you have created a tenuous connection to Buchanan. And Buchanan's recollection is again heresay. Was she part of his campaign structure? Did she actively campaign for him? Did she raise money for him? Did she raise money or contribute to other candidates during the election cycle in question? Answers to those questions would be factual.

Lee Ward[TypeKey Profile Page]:

"The difference between "she's a liar" and "there is evidence that she's lying" in naught other than the second is a passive aggressive approach to saying what you mean. "

Bull - if your command of the english language is so poor you don't know the difference thats fine - but this is a matter of facts, not opinions.

"She's a liar" is an opinion. It may also be a fact but regardless, I didn't state "she's a liar".

"There's evidence that she's lying" is a fact, supported by the evidence cited.

I stated the fact, that there was evidence that she was lying, and I cited the evidence.

"I just put on a Ron Paul button. Am I now (or have I ever been) a Ron Paul supporter?"

Thanks for bringing your sophistry into play. My first reaction, judGing from the dishonest approach you've used in commenting, is that you're just an asshole wearing a Ron Paul button.

But let's look further. Are you a politician? Someone who can be expected to be honest in their 'advertising of support and endorsements'? Then yes, wearing a Ron Paul button is a show of support for Ron Paul - yes, you'd be a Ron Paul supporter.

"At best, you have created a tenuous connection to Buchanan.".

Buchanan states for a fact that Palin attended his fundraiser.

Clarke states for a fact that Palin attended the AIP convention.

These are the facts that I reported.

Instead, imho, you're just some dishonest putz playing with words in a desperate attempt to get your lame candidate's ass out of the wringer, and you're failing miserably - but play on - no foul - play on.

"Was she part of his campaign structure? Did she actively campaign for him? Did she raise money for him? Did she raise money or contribute to other candidates during the election cycle in question? Answers to those questions would be factual."

I suspect she did, and there's no evidence that she didn't, but I would not state those items as facts until someone comes along as says she did, especially if it is Buchannan himself or the chairman of the Alaska Independence Party being quoted --

And at that time I will report and accurately quote what they say, and draw a conclusion from the facts at hand.

Feel free to do the same, anytime, Paul.

Paul Duffau:

fact
Noun
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed
2. a truth that can be proved from experience or observation

Were you at the convention referenced by Clark or the fundraiser cited by Buchanan? If not, you are relying on the testimony of others. Sufficient testimonials may give the appearance of factual content but given that this is also used in marketing Thighmasters and Richard Simmons, it should be viewed with extreme caution.

The statement, "There is plenty of evidence that they are lying", relies on the recollection of 14 years past with at least one major statement already demonstrated to be false. Given that, the source is questionable and my default position is to question any information from that source. Along the lines of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice..."

I have offered several suggestions on independently verifiable facts. You choose instead to rely on third party testimony and "draw conclusions" on it. Interestingly, conclusions are interpretative and thus not, in and of themselves, factual.

Now for another means of determining a fact: The AP verifies that Palin wore a button in 1999 - which does not gibe with Buchanan's account of support in 1996. So your heresay source is at odds with demonstable facts. She also wrote a letter to the editor stating "the article may have left your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla. As mayor, I will welcome all the candidates in Wasilla."

So did she work on his campaign in 2000? Probably not as she was a member of Steve Forbes's Alaska leadership committee. No records that I have been able to locate indicate that she ever worked for or donated to, Pat Buchanan.

Regarding your assertion that wearing a button is tantamont to support, I offer this perspective. I wore the buttons out of courtesy, Lee. I support their right to run for office as I do for everybody. I like dissenting views. They were not morally reprehensible individuals so equivocation first principles were involved. I see no point in attending meetings just to shout contempt to the hosts. And, I do think that wearing a Romney button or a Barr button to a Ron Paul event would be poor manners.

Ray H.:

Lee, As Paul states, I didn't call your article a fabrication. While not explicitely stated, the issue itself was the fabrications. Believe me, I don't believe you of all people are creative enough to create such a unique fabrication. But now, you continue to make inferences about her with circumstantial evidence that is impossible to prove or disprove. She supported Buchanan because she showed up at a fund raising event. Maybe she went there to network with other republicans in general. Paying to go to his event may have been for some other totally different reason. I go to shitty events all the time so that I can see and be seen, doesn't mean I support and or agree with what ever the topic is. It's how you get ahead in life. You all keep throwing shit at the fan hoping something will stick. It's underhanded and dirty politics. Why can't you write a post about the great things your candidate has done and how he's qualified for the post. Oh, wait, becuase he hasn't done anything except manage a campaign and give a couple of speeches.

Lee Ward:

Keep rowing guys - you almost sound convinced.

Ray H.:

I'm already convinced that you're a nit wit that will say/write anything in order to get a democrat elected, even if it's a democrat you were bashing during the primaries.

Paul Duffau:

It really isn't a matter of conviction, Lee.

It's simply doing that which is honest.

Larry:

Lee:

You said:

"Nonethless, Palin did attend the convention. Why?"

Good question. Palin is a politician. She goes where the votes are. The AIP is a single issue party. You can mine that group for voters. Her husband was a member, I think. Go where your husband goes, for another answer.

And nothing wrong with a mixed marriage, take a look at Mary Matalan and her "Jack the Ripper" coonass husband.

A better question would be, "Why not."

Secondly, as a conservative (sorta), I would trust Buchanan and his memory about as much as I would trust the "Journalism" of Keith Olberman or what was really running down the leg of Chris Matthews'. Sometimes I think that Pat comes from stupid side of the Republican Party along with Tom Delay.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.