TheAgitator.com
Troubling New Palin Revelations
Sunday, September 14th, 2008Many of the allegations against Sarah Palin thus far have been minor, petty, or later proven false. Those in this NY Times piece yesterday are are more substantive, and pretty disconcerting:
Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.
So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.
[...]
And four months ago, a Wasilla blogger, Sherry Whitstine, who chronicles the governor’s career with an astringent eye, answered her phone to hear an assistant to the governor on the line, she said.
“You should be ashamed!” Ivy Frye, the assistant, told her. “Stop blogging. Stop blogging right now!”
…an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.
Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.
[...]
Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.
Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.
When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.
“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.
And while it’s true that Palin didn’t directly censor library books, I’m not sure what did happen is much better:
The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral.
“People would bring books back censored,” recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. “Pages would get marked up or torn out.”
Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship.
But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book “Daddy’s Roommate” on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it.
“Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff,” Ms. Chase said. “It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it.”
“I’m still proud of Sarah,” she added, “but she scares the bejeebers out of me.”
It’s the Cheney-esque obsession with secrecy that’s most bothersome:
While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a “personal device” like a BlackBerry “would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.”
Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account “when there was significant state business.”
On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin’s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: “Frank, this is not the governor’s personal account.”
Mr. Bailey responded: “Whoops~!”
I’m starting to see the picture of a Bush-like ideologue who’s not only not particularly cultured or worldly, but also has no intellectual curiosity, no interest in being challenged, and has little tolerance for dissent. The article explains that she surrounds herself with doting supporters, and lashes out for even minor criticisms.
The administration’s e-mail correspondence reveals a siege-like atmosphere. Top aides keep score, demean enemies and gloat over successes. Even some who helped engineer her rise have felt her wrath.
Dan Fagan, a prominent conservative radio host and longtime friend of Ms. Palin, urged his listeners to vote for her in 2006. But when he took her to task for raising taxes on oil companies, he said, he found himself branded a “hater.”
It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”
[...]
At a recent lunch gathering, an official with the Wasilla Chamber of Commerce asked its members to refer all calls from reporters to the governor’s office. Dianne Woodruff, a city councilwoman, shook her head.
“I was thinking, I don’t remember giving up my First Amendment rights,” Ms. Woodruff said. “Just because you’re not going gaga over Sarah doesn’t mean you can’t speak your mind.”
My tepid defense of Palin last week was based on what information was available shortly after her nomination. I may need to rethink it.
What is next, Mary Beth Buchanan as Attorney General??? Wait, I am wrong, she probably would be a supreme court nominee.
Yyyyaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnnnn….
Dog bites woman.
Got anything else, Mr. Balko, besides power corrupting?
Consider the source. It’s the NY Times. Everyone in politics has enemies, and it sounded like she was trying to split the profits of the oil companies obtained from public lands with a greater share to Alaska. Most of this is just typical friction anyone in politics has. It’s not particularly worrisome.
I hope you devote attention to Obama’s numerous ties with terrorists, black race hustlers, corrupt real estate developers, and other assorted liberal trash. Liberalism and wealth distribution and so-called civil rights measures for blacks have had far more to do with expanding government than the alleged vices of “Christianists.”
Well, the childhood friend could conceivably still have been qualified for the job. If the “love of cows was a small part of a cover letter or KSA paragraph, maybe it wouldn’t look that bad in context. I’d have to see the resume. I’m not endorsing cronyism or anything, just saying I’d like to see the context of that statement.
Yeah Chance, absolutely…
Would anybody ever say something like this if a Democrat had nominated a childhood friend of theirs to head an agency with a $2 million budget and casually mentioned their “love of cows.” Of course not.
It’s deja vu all over again.
“I’m starting to see the picture of a Bush-like ideologue who’s not only not particularly cultured or worldly, but also has no intellectual curiosity, no interest in being challenged, and has little tolerance for dissent. The article explains that she surrounds herself with doting supporters, and lashes out for even minor criticisms.”
Why did it take you so long to see what was apparent to everyone else from the get go? Could there be a conflict of interested here? I find it interesting that these doubts aren’t expressed until after the fawning support in your fox column. I doubt your fox column would have been published with these same concerns.
I’m still not clear on the real story behind the library/censorship kerfuffle. Some news sources say “she didnt try to censor books” but others say “she tried to fire the librarian because she wouldnt censor the books.” If both are true, then this is censorship in the same way that it would be an abuse of power to fire the police chief who wouldn’t can her ex brother in law (who, BTW, sounds like he should have been fired, just not in that way).
Bobzbob
Unfortunately, it’s not clear to everyone, not by a long shot.
I took a visceral dislike to her, and am astounded that many, many think she’s the greatest.
The qualification question alone is enough to disqualify her, yet there she is, lionized.
I just don’t get it, I know it is win at all cost, but look what that did last time, I have no sense that a McCain administration would be better, indeed, it seems very likely it could be worse.
She is wildly underqualified and a religious wingnut. I agree with your support for her fringe separatist pro-Alaska party flirtations, but other than that, she’s jealous, petty, pro-big government handouts and earmarks. It should not have taken you this long to realize that Palin is that special combo of being inexperienced enough not to take seriously as a leader, but dangerous enough as a political commodity that her numerous failings must be regularly exposed. She must never be allowed to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Yawn.
Sorry Radley, there’s been too much of this stuff in the weeks since she was nominated for me to take any of it seriously.
So she’s Dick Cheney with tits?
If you’re not doing anything wrong, then you should not have anything to worry about (or hide).
Wait a minute…that did not work out right ;)
Peter,
Too much to take what seriously?
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see Obama subjected to this sort of scrutiny? Of course, we’d probably just find out more about entirely neutral folks like, oh, Bill Ayers…
Looking at these posts I’m confused. I never equated voting Republican with being a total doofus. McCain should have been focused on strengthening his campaign with a serious candidate, someone like Pawlenty for instance. Sarah Palin seems to be a small town mayor who made it to the top in Alaska and decided it’s time to replace one set of cronies with another and then had them fight her personal feuds.
I expected more from McCain.
From here, it looks like this: When the Republicans and Democrats were planning how to approach this election, they both realized that there is a real shitstorm coming, and both decided they did not really want to occupy the White House for the next term. Therefore, the Democrats intelligently set about losing the presidency. They selected a woman and a black to be their final choices, which allowed all the Dems to look all tolerant and everything, while chuckling behind their hands, knowing that the USans are not ready to elect either a woman or a black to the presidency. Therefore, they forced the Republicans to occupy the oval office. The Republicans, seeing this tactic working against them, selected an old warhorse as their candidate, anticipating that many voters would move away from another 100 years of war, toward the Democratic candidate, and therefore the Republicans dodged the White house. Whew. Seeing this, the Dems chose Joe Biden for veep, hoping that this would chase those same fickle voters back to McCain’s camp. McCain, seeing the peril that he might actually win, looked for the least likely candidate for veep, hoping that such a poor choice would save the day and lose the election. The media immediately let McCain down, falling over themselves adoring Sarah Palin and forcing him to become president. Thus the vagaries of politics.
This is thin gruel. I am usually greatly impressed with the measured commentary here…I’m uncertain as to how any of the allegations, if true, disqualify her or even paint her in a negative light. Did she violate any laws with her appointment of a high school classmate? Did she violate fiduciary or other duties when she was a mayor of a small town? Wasn’t her job to represent her constituents within the constraints placed on her by the Constitution, State and Federal law and, did she exceed these constraints in doing so?
You are quoting innuendo from the New York Times in whole cloth.
Where is the spirit of independent journalism and analysis that ferreted out issues like Dr. Haynes, the Cory Maye case, Rack n Roll, Sal Culosi etc.?
And, finally, why place a higher standard on Sarah Palin than on the other candidates? I have seen no similar detailed analysis of Barack appear on this site, and he’s on the top of the ticket. Maybe that’s because the New York Times hasn’t printed one yet. I suppose I’ll have to wait until they do.
All this just reinforces the conclusion I reached after reading Gene Healy’s excellent book The Cult of the Presidency. Because of the extreme concentration of power in the Presidency, we’re reduced to sniping at each other over the personality flaws of people that *shouldn’t* matter, but which unfortunately *do* matter because of the enormous power the Presidency invests in a single person (and thus, a single personality) over society and the world.
Ideally, it wouldn’t matter if your worst enemy was elected President, because he/she wouldn’t have the power to do anything to you.
Primus: i’ve been suspecting the same thing over the last weeks. Whoever the next president is going to be, is going to inhereit a major disastor, and perhaps sit at the helm of a ship about to sink or perhaps slip beneath the surface.
Limbaugh said a few months ago that it would be best for McCain to torpedo his campaign and let obama win, and then take everything in 2012 after the storm has come and gone. It’s stuck in my mind for some time now. And I, for one, thinks he’s absolutely right.
If people vote for McCain now, and the depression does hit, free market capitalism would never regain it’s stature in front of the voters. It would solidify decades of socialism. In contrast, if Obama wins, and everything is blamed on him, people will begin to distrust socialism and look for a more market-oriented solution to cure the problems.
I get the feeling this all depends on who is willing to make a short-term sacrifice to make long-term gains.
Consider the source. The NY Slimes has ZERO credibility in my book. Enough said.
Of course, we’d probably just find out more about entirely neutral folks like, oh, Bill Ayers…
So, what, exactly, is Obama’s relationship with Ayers? I know they are both members of the Woods Fund Board and that Ayers gave $200 to his campaign. Besides that, there’s no evidence that they’re friends or that they’ve done any favors for each other. If you know of any evidence to the contrary, I’d appreciate a link.
You know, there’s a ton of stuff to criticize about what the candidates *openly advocate*
I imagine a lot of these things are true, but we shouldn’t trust the Times. They already had to redact a number of things they said about her. I read the article in the paper when it came out…it drips of partisan rhetoric.
Yeah, I’m just so sure that the fundy mayor was just asking about removing books from the library because . . .
um . . .
Oh yeah! She was just making sure nobody else did it! That’s it!
She never advocated censorship!
Hm… I was just reading an article on Geraldine Ferraro’s run for VP, and there are some interesting parallels with GOV Palin (besides the obvious). If history continues to repeat itself, her star will rapidly fade and do little to help McCain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Ferraro#1984_Vice-Presidential_candidacy
Of course, take it all with a grain of salt since it’s wikipedia.
When the ‘non-partial’ (ha) Times does the story about Obama using earmarks to get his wife a high-paying, I’ll care about this …. otherwise .. *yawn*.
She’s Ayn Rand without the brain. And without the speed.
Doesn’t on this whole damn page even know what “censorship” really is?
When a government library stops or refrains from carrying a particular book, that’s not censorship. Even if a politician orders a government-employee librarian to remove a book, it’s not censorship.
– Censorship is when a government forbids a certain work to be published and/or read.
Although I suspect that many conservatives won’t think that the Washington Post is any more credible than the NY Times, there was an astonishingly similar story in today’s Sunday Post, too. (I put the similarity down to the fact that Wasilla’s a really, really small town, so every resident has probably already been interviewed five times.)
Palin’s really entirely beside the point. The whole purpose in putting her on the ticket is to make 2008 just another battle in the kulturkampf. McCain has just bet that there’s enough hatred left in social conservatives to make them overlook the fact that the country’s still tied up in Iraq with no political solution in sight, that we’re not winning in Afghanistan (according to the commander there), that the economy is so precarious that one after another, major financial institutions are failing and having to lean on an increasingly indebted US Treasury. If McCain can get everyone to forget all of that and remember everything that divides us, then he’s got a chance of winning.
That’s why Palin keeps lying long after her lies have been proven: because McCain’s campaign understands that the more hatred and fear she creates on the left, the stronger the social conservatives rally behind her.
It’s the antithesis of leadership– it’s a tactical choice to press the reptilian buttons in everyone’s brains and a bet that the more he polarizes the country, the better his odds of getting a plurality of votes. Anyone who thinks that McCain cares one crap about Palin and her crazy social issues is ridiculously credulous. That’s what makes it all the more outrageous that he’s willing to inflict this woman on us in the 1/7th chance that the grim reaper knocks on his door in the next four years (look it up in the SSA’s actuarial tables).
In a rational world, this decision and the disregard it reflects for the country’s many, substantial problems would by itself disqualify McCain from serious consideration as a president.
They already had to redact a number of things they said about her.
I’d appreciate some links to these. Thanks.
When the ‘non-partial’ (ha) Times does the story about Obama using earmarks to get his wife a high-paying, I’ll care about this …. otherwise .. *yawn*.
You can officially start caring. But maybe you should grab a cup of coffee first. From the March 14 edition:
But as the Senate debated a bill to restrict the controversial method of paying for home-state projects — a measure defeated Thursday evening — Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress. And among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a vice president.
Just as predictable and pathetic is this:
In other cases, Mr. Obama’s requests benefited political supporters.
His campaign’s list said the senator had secured $1.3 million of an $8 million request in 2006 for a high-explosive technology program for the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The list said the program was overseen by General Dynamics.
One of Mr. Obama’s top supporters, James S. Crown, serves on the board of General Dynamics, a military contractor. Mr. Crown is a member of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us/politics/14campaign.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=login
Is there any truth to what I’m seeing on the web about a deal negotiated with Iraq’s insurgents for $800,000/day to NOT attack US troops? If so will it stop on the day after the election?
It would seem that ignoring Palin is the best thing to do.
Um, Ayers also hosted a major, early fundraiser for Obama at his house. Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who claims they didn’t do enough (his words). Sorry, I don’t really need to know much else about Obama. Note that I’m not advocating *for* McCain, but there’s just not enough scrutiny from some parts on Obama’s friends.
Michael– I wonder how many fundraisers McCain has attended hosted by people who sympathize with antiabortion terrorists like Eric Rudolph and the like-minded Christian Identity movement. It was a Republican, William Webster, who famously refused to characterise the bombing of abortion clinics as terrorism.
Although McCain has not expressed sympathy for these views, he’s clearly aligning himself with a movement against reproductive liberty whose central tenet– that life begins at conception– has been used to justify murder, just like Ayers justified his bombings (which he insists did not hurt anyone, although the Greenwich Village bomb which killed Weather Undergound members was probably meant to do so).
Ad hominem attacks on a presidential or vice presidential candidate are all well and good– these folks should be scrutinized. Ad hominem attacks on them via ad hominem attacks on someone who hosted a fundraiser for them 13 years ago are a pretty obvious attempt to change the topic from what really matters.
Ayers also hosted a major, early fundraiser for Obama at his house…
According to the AP:
When Obama was organizing his first race for the state legislature [in 1995], the incumbent lawmaker he hoped to replace introduced him to her supporters and urged them to back Obama. One introductory event took place at the home of Ayers and Dohrn, according to published reports. Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s legislative campaign in 2001, but there is no other sign that he has actively aided Obama’s political career.
Wow. When, exactly, has Biden endured such scrutiny, or Obama/Jesus for that matter? BDS has been replaced by PDS. If conservatives treated ANYONE on the left, male/female, black or white, like Sarah Palin has been treated since being named running mate, they would be “racist”, “sexist”, “evil”, “thugs”, “fascists”, “nazis” et al. The more people freak out, the more I can’t wait to vote. Keep it up.
lubetube– thanks for proving the point I made in comment no. 30.
On Biden: he was raked over the coals by the press when he first ran for president (and ridden out of the race on a rail) because, although he had cited Neil Kinnock on numerous occasions when he borrowed a bit from one of Kinnock’s speeches, on one occasion he forgot to do so, and Broder and Dowd ran to the presses to call him a plagiarist.
What really irks conservatives, I think, is that for the first time in many, many years, the press actually admires a Democratic candidate, instead of making up crap about him for kicks (see, for example, the press’s treatment of Al Gore from 1998 on). McCain called the press his “base.” That’s clearly changing, and, well, you’re right to be scared, because it’s the best thing that McCain had going for him.
If Palin can’t stand the heat– oops, I was going to say she should get out of the kitchen, but you’d probably call that comment sexist.
lubetube, the only folks I see “freaking out” are the Republican loyalists who have suddenly morphed into ultra-sensitive whiners when faced with a little background/fact checking. They’re acting just like Hillary supporters, for crying out loud.
People that think Palin is a worthy candidate probably understand what she means by a “mission”.
The nice thing about beliefs are that you don’t question them because they’re The Truth. Facts aren’t needed. Life becomes very simple. And people who don’t agree are Wrong. And need to be Corrected.
Leaders like this are what made the 20th century a bloodbath.
Palin sounds like a classic Christian statist.
NYT hit piece. She’s got an 80+ positive rating up there, over 70% among Democratic women but the times couldn’t find anyone with anything nice to say about her?
Sheesh. Consider the source.
Les and Ben. Like I said, keep it up. I’m not so much irked as puzzled as to why a supposedly libertarian house like Balko’s has veered so far left into Obama’s camp. There isn’t much to love on either side, but the devil you know is far better than a narcissistic marxist wolf in a sheep’s empty suit. If I thought a vote for Barr or Dr. Paul would do any good, I’d do so, but now I just want to keep Barack Mohammed away from the big boy toys.
The inherent racism of some “libertarians” is stunning. Of course, one wonders how libertarian you can really be if you’re supporting McCain/Palin.
For those interested, here is a link to the blog of Sherry Whitstine, quoted in the NYT article. The blog appears to be about 6 months old.
http://syrin.vox.com/
It appears to re-hash (or to be the source of) the NYT’s claims with little factual evidence or documentation to back up the claims.
How do people not find this concerning? Or how can you expect a libertarian blog not to?
Officials using their power to settle personal scores, going out of their way to avoid transparency, and making decisions of questionable legality based on their religious or moral views is anathema to the fundamentals of libertarianism. Combine that with serious intellectual laziness, and you’re left with a large, inefficient, intrusive government that can’t be held accountable.
If that doesn’t bother you than that’s fine, but it’s certainly a very reasonabe concern for some to have. I think there are tons of reasons why libertarians can’t be crazy about Obama, but after the most unlibertarian president in history, a man who never saw a law he had to follow, who viewed the Constitution as an outdated suggestion, who essentially promoted incompetence and inneficiency and avoided accountability in every possible way including illegal ones, I’d think a libertarian would be inclined to vote for the candidate who was most likely to submit himself ot the rule of law and care about whether his conduct conformed to the limits layed out in the Constitution. Seems clear to me that that guy is Obama.
And Honeyko, if you can explain the difference between removing a book from a public library because of its content and “forbid[ding] a certain work to be read” I’ll send you a nice shiny quarter.
Les, there are times I wish this site had a mechanism for two thumbs up.
lol @ lubetube
It really does seem that Republicans have some serious selective filtering that occurs.
lubetube, at first I was confused how anyone could post such obviously false claims, then I noticed your “Mohammed” comment and I suddenly realized that you’re a stupid fucking bigot, so it all suddenly made sense.
I’m sort of amazed that it took all the way to #45 to play the race card.
I’m definitely a small-l libertarian (less government- hell, yeah!) but not a doctinaire fool. Supporting McC-P over Oboy is not even a stretch.
In short, there is no way the the Reps are going to control Congress. With a Dem Congress and a (FAR, FAR, FAR LEFT) Dem President, all those wonderful government programs we all love, like gun control, a US NHS, and higher, higher taxes to support all the new “transfer payment” programs he’s already promised will zip through in the proverbial 100 days. Has anyone here actually listened to his stump speech about everything he’s going to fix – and we’ll pay for?
McC-P is going to face a hostile Congress, with all that means – less goverment than otherwise. Come on, gridlock!!!
Look, if you want to vote your “conscience” and pull the lever for Barr… that’s understandable. But to actually vote for Oboy… I hope you don’t get your wish, but if you do, I predict you won’t be able to look at yourself in the mirror by about mid-March.
Bud,
I would definitely criticize someone for playing the race card and then refer to the black candidate multiple times as “boy…” Needless to say, your own post is thick with the lies being spread by McCain’s supporters, including this raise taxes on everyone claim. By almost all accounts, 95 percent of people will be paying less taxes.
Republicans have been responsible for the biggest government this nation has seen in decades – you claim to support small government, and yet you support the Republican Party, a group which creates enormous government…it’s almost as if you’re being unbelievably inconsistent.
Bud:
This column, by Michael Kinsley, provides some interesting data and analysis on which party does a better job of actually delivering on the Republican party’s stated principles of smaller government. And the answer is: it’s the Dems.
Unless you’re a faith-based believer in smaller government, the answer seems obvious: vote Democratic.
[...] The Agitator: Troubling New Palin Revelations [...]