Would Your Mother Make a Good VP?

I got asked in a telephone poll yesterday whether I viewed Sarah Palin favorably. How do you answer that? Fortunately, the pollster was pretty loose and accepted my non-responsive answer of, Yeah, I'd like her to stay my governor.

You may love your mom and still not think she'd be a good vice president or president.

Rating Palin as a Person

My first personal interaction with Sarah Palin - an early political talk and question and answer session at the University of Alaska Anchorage being the one in which I actually talked to her - left me feeling both impressed and a little skeptical. She was unpretentious, didn't pretend to know things she didn't know - she just said, "I need to learn more about that" or "What do you suggest on that?" I'm generally a pretty good judge of whether people are genuine and if she wasn't that day, she got past my crap detectors. But it also seemed like she had a long way to go to beat the Republican establishment, and then the former Democratic Governor. But she did both. So I'm cautious about underestimating her now.

But it's possible to evaluate someone differently for different roles. The public person I saw was someone I liked. I don't agree with things she believes, but she listened to others and didn't have any of the facade politicians normally have. I realize that people in Wasilla saw a lot more, if not cunning, at least very focused drive to get what she was after.

All in all, I think she's smart, but has been raised in a limited environment where she was overly influenced by fairly narrow religious beliefs. I personally don't think abortion is a good thing, but I think it is morally much more ambiguous than right-to-lifers would have it. The fewer the number of abortions the better, but ultimately, each woman has to make that decision for herself. But someone who truly believes there's a soul from the moment of conception, probably has a moral duty to stop abortion. But teaching creationism alongside evolution? That's just ignorance in my mind. But I think that Sarah is smart enough and curious enough that she could grow beyond her roots on some of the more stifling beliefs.


Rating Palin as a Governor

Running for governor she took on her corrupt party leaders. It didn't hurt her cause that the FBI raided some of their offices and indicted some of them during the campaign. And then she did stand up to the big oil companies in Juneau. First on the petroleum profit tax increase and then on the Alaska Gasline Incentive Act.

In some ways these were ethical stances - the oil companies had done their best to buy the legislature through campaign contributions, trips to Prudhoe Bay, and other junkets, and through Bill Allen (pled guilty) on the PPT bill and the gasline. She had good advisers on this and stood up to the oil companies. But basically, she wants to drill ANWR (no Alaskan politicians think they can oppose drilling and win), and fought protection of polar bears that might threaten offshore oil drilling. And in recent weeks (is it really only weeks ago this came out?) her firing of the head of the troopers was the first public glimpse of another side of Palin.

All in all, while I didn't vote for Palin, I think by standing up to the Republican party and the oil companies, she probably did a lot more good for Alaska than her Democratic opponent would have done. Up til now, she's been a good governor and that's why she's got such high ratings.

Rating Palin as a VP or President

Most people who eventually run for president have had pretty broad life experiences in their college and early post college years a time in their lives when they are still forming their moral understanding of the world. I don't think Palin had those kinds of experiences until she was in her 40s as Governor, an age when it is harder - though not impossible - to change. Only then did she make her first trip outside the US (not counting Canada I assume), did she deal with people outside of Alaska on serious issues. (There could be other experiences I'm unaware of, but I doubt there was much significant interaction with people different from Palin.)

The Republican spin machine is ludicrously calling black, white in their effort to paint Palin as experienced. Despite their claims that being head of the Alaska National Guard gave her commander-in-chief experience and that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her important international policy experience, any Alaskan who knows anything, knows that's total nonsense. I doubt that Palin could have named more than one or two current Russian leaders before last week, or could have picked out Georgia on a world map. (I'm not sure she could have picked out the state of Georgia on a US map.) Or could tell us about the Russian Revolution, even when it was, let alone who played leading roles. (Most Americans couldn't do that either, but most Americans aren't running for vice president.) When I read Ropi's blog, I'm amazed at what a modern Hungarian high school student studies. In many ways I'd say Ropi's knowledge would make Palin's knowledge of the world embarrassing. That's not to say Ropi is in any way ready to be a US Vice President, but I'd dare say his basic knoweldge about the world, about world history, and even his least favorite subjects like math and biology, are well beyond what Sarah Palin or even most American high school graduates know.


So, as you can see, evaluating Sarah Palin isn't that easy. It depends what you're evaluating her for. I think that socially I'd enjoy her company and conversation at dinner [aside from the fact that she's the VP candidate.] We have different values and beliefs, but she's bright and it would interesting to hear what she has to say about what she believes.

For her performance as governor, I give her high marks so far. The Monehan affair is a sign of her lack of experience in the ethics of organizational protocol, especially governmental organizations, where merit systems are the standard. Whether she would have (under normal circumstances) learned and adjusted in response was one of the things that would have told us whether she was just a fluke who came along at the right time with the right qualities, or whether she had the potential to grow into a serious stateswoman.

As a potential Vice President, and thus a potential President I have to assess her against very different criteria. A gifted ice skater who's sent to the Olympics without a lot of training and competitive experience could do well, but the odds aren't good. Our Olympic tryouts wouldn't let that person in. Palin hasn't tried out. She hasn't competed beyond the Alaska championships. We're a state with fewer than 700,000 people! That means she really hasn't been tested at all in the big leagues. And we're talking about one of the most important jobs in the world. Scary is all I can say.

The Peace Corps, at least when I was in training, had a category called "high risk - high gain." It meant they thought the trainee could either be a super volunteer or a total washout. In Sarah Palin, at this point, I see the high-risk part, but I simply don't see the high-gain part. (Yes if my life was dedicated to fighting abortion and gay rights, and bringing back SUV's, God into schools and government, I could see the high-gain label, but that isn't me.)


What Happened to the Fighter Who Stood Up to Her Corrupt Party Leaders?

One more observation. The one thing most Alaskans would agree on about Sarah Palin is that she stood up to her corrupt party leaders, at a time when that really was risky, and declared her party chair unethical. She resigned saying she simply couldn't continue on the Oil and Gas Commission under the circumstances. That was a gutsy thing to do and bought a lot of credibility for her among Alaskans.

But what happened to that Sarah Palin? Now we see a Sarah Palin who is compromising those brave acts by following the orders of the likes of Karl Rove and his Orwellian soulless-mates. The Palin who spoke of cooperation and who worked with Democrats in Juneau, is now throwing mean, baseless accusations at Obama (Making "community organizing" into an epithet is consistent with the Republican game plan of poisoning every word that describes their opponents.)

The openness that impressed me so much when I first saw her has turned to deception about her record in front of the national audience and a week in hiding from the press. The old Sarah Palin would have giggled at the claim that her position of governor gave her serious commander-in-chief experience or that she was a Russian policy expert. Rudy Ruedrich (the Alaskan Republican Party chair she outed as corrupt) must be wondering how that strong-willed Sarah Palin has turned into the docile, obedient student of the even more corrupt Karl Rove and gang.

One explanation is that Sarah Palin is a superb actress and brilliant strategist and her fight against the Alaskan Republican party was a devious Machiavellian plot, and Lyda Green has pegged Palin right all along. (A great example of Palin's amateur status is her giggling on the radio talk show when the hosts called Lyda Green a bitch (hmmm, I never thought I'd cite Dan Fagan as a reference, but he paints the picture of the audio I heard when it was available) instead of telling them they went way over the line. That YouTube tape now has this message: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party.")

A more likely explanation is that Palin is absolutely no match for the level of play in national Republican circles and that being on McCain's ticket has her totally compliant to the Rovian team that sold George W. Bush to the American public. Twice.

Palin in Hong Kong

I tried to find some Hong Kong bloggers reporting on Palin there. Mostly it's foreign press blogs. Maybe that's because Hong Kong doesn't care about Palin. Or because the press was shut out of the speech. But here's one local blogger, Hong Kong Life, describing the CSLA - the forum where she spoke:

WSJ noted that Palin has never been to East Asia and isn't exactly famous for her mastery of public speaking or her expertise in finance and international affairs. But CLSA spokeswoman Simone Wheeler said it isn't necessary to have financial background to be speaking in the prestigious event.

There are basically two groups that compose these noted speakers. First are the conventional, ultra-savvy financial / political leaders like Alan Greenspan, Michael Robert Milken. The other group are composed of celebrities either for entertainment or taking diverse views. This includes Bob Geldof, Boomtown Rats lead singer turned anti-poverty activist, and singers Sir Elton John, Macy Gray, and Tom Jones.

We don't know if Sarah Palin would be grouped with entertainers (she is entertaining enough during the election campaigns by the way) because her topic isn't disclosed and the event was off-limits to media. Not until she opens her mouth and starts talking.

Hong Kong's South China Morning Post's story began this way:

Palin's handlers take the conservative approach

A triumph of low expectations? Quite possibly, but as always with Sarah Palin, that depends on who you talk to....

The main event instead was a tightly choreographed speech and question-and-answer session behind closed doors. Talking to attendees, it was clear Palin was determined to brush aside criticism of her ignorance of world affairs and burnish her international credentials while painting herself as a "small c" conservative. The "drill, baby, drill" rhetoric of her stump speeches, geared to firing up American conservatives, was replaced with an international edge and a touch more humour and nuance. She spoke for more than 90 minutes, part of a paid engagement that her aides have admitted will help pay legal bills. . .

"She seemed to relish the chance to show us really who she is and what she thinks ... I thought she gave a good account of herself," one Republican banker said. "She mentioned Reagan and Thatcher and small government and fiscal discipline ... that was all good stuff for this crowd. She didn't mention either of the Bushes or Obama [by name] once."

Not everyone was as generous. Some described people nodding off, walking out or even reading a newspaper at one point. Others dismissed her foreign policy ideas as the stuff of a high school project. She skated over global finance, and many noted that it did not appear as if she had written the speech herself.

A Frenchwoman who attended said she felt Palin was campaigning. "It was a goodwill speech without referring to what is happening. Maybe as governor of Alaska she did well, but she's not for the presidency. You get the impression she doesn't know the world is changing and that the US is not the power it used to be."

The Hong Kong Standard used a piece from and AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, REUTERS:

Palin's Asia debut speech divides investors

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Former US vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin divided an international Hong Kong audience of financial big-hitters at her first speech outside North America yesterday with some leaving in disgust.

The wide-ranging speech by the former governor of Alaska at the CLSA Investors' Forum covered international terrorism, US economic policy and trade with China, but was closed to the media.

Some listeners praised her forthright views on government social and economic intervention but others walked out early.

"She was brilliant," said one European delegate. "She said America was spending a lot of money and it was a temporary solution. Normal people are having to pay more and more but things don't get better."

In a speech lasting about 75 minutes, Palin slammed the current US government on spending and health care and praised the economic policies of former US president Ronald Reagan, delegates said. "We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place," Palin said.

A US delegate leaving early said: "It was awful, we couldn't stand it any longer."

And this is from the (London) Timesonline:

Sarah Palin’s first ever visit to East Asia began with a monologue that invoked the spirit of Margaret Thatcher, sounded “unmistakably” like a pitch for the 2012 presidency and was described by several members of the audience as “long, humorless and George W Bush-like”. . .

“I’m going to call it like I see it and I will share with you candidly a view right from Main Street, Main Street USA,” the former vice-Presidential candidate declared, before launching into prepared remarks on the Alaskan fishing industry.

Several audience members reportedly walked out of Ms Palin’s speech 30 minutes before the end, citing “more important things to do” or describing the talk as “too partisan and too much like a speech at the Republican convention”.

One senior fund manager told The Times that the 80-minute lecture, and the lack of an opportunity to fire any questions at Ms Palin, was a disappointment. “You would think that with her team of speechwriters and a supposedly media-free environment Palin could have afforded to be either funny or thought-provoking, but she was neither,” she said.

Interesting, the Times piece says "lack of an opportunity to fire any questions" but the South China Morning Post piece mentions "a tightly choreographed speech and question-and-answer session". The Times piece is quoting an attendee, the SCMP mentions it as part of their own reporting.

Alaska Political Bloggers Credited

Phil at Progressive Alaska just alerted me about this post at Media Matters by Erik Boehlert Saradise Lost: How Alaska bloggers dethroned Sarah Palin (another case where the title goes well beyond what the article actually says.)

I'm not suggesting that homegrown bloggers alone were responsible for Palin's "no más" moment, but there's no question that the online activists played a key role. That with their shit-kicking brand of frontier citizen journalism, they drove Palin to distraction and changed the way voters nationwide thought about the governor. So if conservative bloggers get credit for driving Dan Rather out of the anchor chair in 2004 following their Memogate campaign-season tale, then the band of scrappy liberal bloggers in Alaska ought to be allowed to bask in a bit of glory, because they made their own history when Palin announced her exit.

Now, Palin has already credited bloggers in her resignation speech. But I guess we saw that as being made scapegoats. Boehlert's comments feel different.

Even What Do I Know? is listed in the story (thanks to Phil's den mother-like devotion to his digital-campers.) While it's true I have written way more Palin posts than I think is good for my mental health, the real bulldogs in this story are (stand up and take a bow as your name is called):

Alaska Progressive
Mudflats
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis
Just a Girl From Homer
Immoral Minority

along with

AndrewHalcro.com

who's written some critical posts - such as the stuff on Troopergate which began before the VP nomination. (There are lots of other Alaska bloggers who regularly touch on matters political, but the listed blogs were almost all-Palin, all-the-time.)


I take some pride in being, I'm sure, the first website to link to Progressive Alaska, even before it actually went public, having met Phil at the Kohring (or maybe it was the Kott) trial. From the beginning he had ideas of finding a way organize bloggers into a force to post the important stories that the local newspapers were missing. But, as others have mentioned, the pivotal event for Alaska political bloggers was McCain's announcement of his VP running mate.

While some of this pack of self-taught journalists have been more shrill and less polite than is my preference, I have no doubt that those qualities were critical to their success. We get the vacuous news the MSM gives us because that's what most people want. I used to dispute that, but I can see how many hits I get for different posts, and Palin sells, big!

And this isn't good. Other difficult stories aren't being adequately covered - like what's happening in the fishing wars of the North Pacific. We should be unraveling of the complex legal and financial web, including Uncle Ted's role, of what some say is the North Pacific's version of the destruction of the North Atlantic fisheries.

Alaskan bloggers, though, have had a special duty to cover Palin, not simply as a local politician, but because of her national aspirations.

But I would like to debunk some of the conspiracy theories that had Alaskan bloggers as agents with direct links to the White House. While there is a loose email connection among the larger group, and individual bloggers see each other more or less frequently, this is a pretty rag-tag group, united in their dedication to be Alaska's crap detectors.

To give you a sense of how 'loose' this group is, I remember first meeting Linda of Celtic Diva at the Alaska Democratic Convention last May. Then again at a hastily arranged dinner last September out at Phil's place to meet with journalists from Outside who were here to find out about Palin. . That's when I also briefly met Mudflats and Gryphen (from Immoral Minority). And there was a barbecue at Phil's place too. And that's the last time I think I've seen most of them. I'd met Shannyn Moore already at one of the political trials. I've bumped into some of them at events we were all covering - like the Alaska women against Palin demonstration - but other than that, I've had no contact. When I was taking the computer art class last fall, I sometimes ran into Phil while I was locking my bike and he'd come out from his office (music is in the same building as art) for a cigarette break. (He's quit since then.) And the odd email now and then. I realize some of the others have gotten together more often, but this is not a highly polished get-Sarah machine. It is individuals with computers at home who get too little sleep and drink too much coffee, so they can share what they find out about what is behind the facade.

And there were others who offered us encouragement and inspiration along the way, like Matt Browner Hamlin who was in Alaska working on the Begich campaign and had done political blogging in the East (Massachusetts if I recall right[It's Connecticut.]) He raised our sights about what bloggers could do.

Eric Boehlert has already tipped his hat to this group of bloggers in a chapter in his recent book The Bloggers on the Bus.


So what has this group done?

Followed up on every rumor they heard. They didn't always post what they heard, but they looked through the evidence and

• after getting it from several sources, but without confirmation, reported it as a rumor
• got more information and confirmed or rejected it
• analyzed the data available and offered possible explanations and their reasoning
• sometimes taken too much glee in Palin missteps
• kept a constant vigil on everything Palin said, giving her no lattitude when she stretched the truth, and she kept them very busy
  

They've (I'm not sure what it means that I'm using 'they' instead of 'we' but I'll not worry about it and go on that way) posted lots of videos and pictures, of varying levels of good taste, that related to Palin, and had links to local and national stories on Palin.

They've also been sources of information for Outside journalists. Overall, while some of the group have been louder than necessary and sometimes a little fast with declarative sentences, most of the bloggers have qualified their claims based on how much they actually knew or how solid the evidence was.

One critical contribution was the group's early awareness of what Don Mitchell said last week, that Palin is a celebrity, not a serious politician. But unlike Paris Hilton, Sarah Palin held an elected political office, so she was accountable in a way that celebrities aren't. Now that she's almost out of office, she can take advantage of that celebrity without getting flak for not doing a competent job as governor. However, if she plans to continue trying to influence public policy and democratic elections, there will continue to be an open season on Sarah Palin.

[Update July 20, 2009: As I've had time to think more about this, I believe the biggest contribution the so-called progressive blogs was to give Alaska liberals a media presence, a sense of identity and of political efficacy. I've posted an addition to this post today explaining why.]

Former Anchorage Boy Blogs in NY About Vanity Fair's Palin Story

Marty Beckerman grew up in Anchorage and now lives and works in New York.  Among other things he blogs.  His short piece on The Awl  begins with comments on the Michael Joseph Gross piece in the new VF, then goes on to talk about what it's like to be from Alaska.  [Disclosure:  I knew Marty when he was a kid here in Anchorage, but haven't seen him for a long while. He had a bizarre sense of humor back then and even wrote a book in college and seems to have found someone to pay him to keep writing. The bio says he's written two more books and he's the online features editor at Esquire.]

The new Vanity Fair Sarah Palin profile is enthralling: rage-fueled breakdowns, domestic violence (is there a battered spouse center for First Dudes?) and Madoff-worthy financial manipulation. Equally fascinating is the climate of fear and confusion that Michael Joseph Gross discovered in Wasilla, where townspeople are terrified of discussing their former mayor/governor, and deeply uncomfortable with the world-famous media creation that she has become. "To appreciate how alien Palin has become in Wasilla, how inscrutable to her own people, you have to wrap your mind around the fact that Sarah Palin is more famous than any other Alaskan, ever," Gross writes. "It still does not quite seem real to most Alaskans that there are all these thousands of people in the Lower 48 turning out for … Sarah."

Echoing the fear theme, someone mentioned that Joe McGuiness said that he was surprised at the level of Palinphobia in Wasilla.  Fear seems to be a characteristic of the Republican party in Alaska.  Someone else mentioned good friends who wouldn't contribute to non-partisan candidates because the party would punish them for straying from the fold. 

Below is a paragraph from the actual Vanity Fair article about Palin's tipping habits. 

Palin does not always treat those ordinary people well, however—it depends on who is watching. Of the many famous people who have stayed at the Hyatt in Wichita (Cher, Reba McEntire, Neil Young), Sarah Palin ranks as the all-time worst tipper: $5 for seven bags. But the bellhops had it good in Kansas, compared with the bellman at another midwestern hotel who waited up until past midnight for Palin and her entourage to check in—and then got no tip at all for 10 bags. He was stiffed again at checkout time. The same went for the maids who cleaned Palin’s rooms in both places—no tip whatsoever. The only time I heard of Palin giving a generous tip was in St. Joseph, Michigan, after the owner of Kilwin’s chocolate shop, on State Street, sent a CARE package to Palin’s suite, and Palin walked to the store to say thank you. She also wanted to buy more boxes of candy to take home. When the owner would not accept her money, Palin, encircled by the crowd that had jammed the store to get a glimpse of her, pressed a hundred-dollar bill into the woman’s hand, saying, “This is for the staff.” That Ben Franklin was the talk of State Street the whole rest of the day. 

The whole VF article is here.

Baby Burke Brouhaha

I've been pondering this week's brouhaha over the picture of Baby Eddie Burke in Sarah Palin's arms. While I enjoy satire, I also feel that political humor generally feeds the faithful and ticks off the targets. Only brilliant satire has the possibility of changing the minds of the committed.

Looking at the picture, I didn't realize it was Eddie Burke's face and it was only after I read the explanations that I got the point. I certainly wasn't going to post the picture and I figured I'd stay out of the discussion altogether. But then the Governor's spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton, released a statement (copied here from Conservatives4Palin) (If the picture is so terrible why did C4P post it on their own website? You can see it at the link.)

Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.

Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned.

Paragraph 1:

Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.(emphasis added.)

Desecration. Merriam Webster's online dictionary isn't too helpful:

: an act or instance of desecrating : the state of being desecrated

But you can link to desecrate:

1 : to violate the sanctity of : PROFANE
2 : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously

And sanctity?

1: holiness of life and character : godliness
2 a: the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability
b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

So there is a religious etymology to this word, but it has come to be used in other contexts as well. But then Stapleton also uses the term "iconic representation of a mother's love. . ."

Back to the dictionary:

Icon

1: a usually pictorial representation : image
2 [Late Greek eikōn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians
3: an object of uncritical devotion : idol
4: emblem, symbol
5 a: a sign (as a word or graphic symbol) whose form suggests its meaning
b: a graphic symbol on a computer display screen that usually suggests the type of object represented or the purpose of an available function

Using both desecration and iconic image in one sentence strongly suggests to me that there was either intentional manipulation to give this a religious spin, or that Palin's staff are so steeped in religion that they think in those terms and just write this sort of language naturally. Here's my picture (from talaria) of an iconic image of a mother and child.


Paragraph 2:

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.

Why is a special needs baby, in this case, any different from any baby? Why are they continuing to emphasize that this is a special needs baby? It's like saying "this is my black friend' as opposed to just "my friend." What's the point? If Biegel had 'doctored' a picture of a 'normal' baby, would that have been ok? What if they had photoshopped the baby out completely and used a different baby in the picture? Would that have been ok? Or what if she had put Palin's face over Mary's in the icon and Burke's over the baby Jesus'? Would that have been ok?

Because here the outrage all seems to be that someone would make fun of a special needs baby. And as I see this picture, it's aimed at parodying Burke's and Palin's close relationship. Palin doesn't complain about Burke's degrading comments about women and he seems to be infatuated with Palin. The emphasis on 'special needs' seems to be Stapleton's effort to remind people that Palin is indeed an icon of motherhood because she kept her special needs baby. As if such a baby is less than a 'normal' baby and keeping it shows Palin's holiness. (Hey, I could be totally wrong. But at least I pose my comments as possible interpretations, while the tone of Stapleton's release suggests there can be no other interpretation than hers.)

And why is it more sickening that Alaskans did this? Are Alaskans supposed to give Palin more respect than other people? It seems people who are most affected by Palin have the most responsibility to closely monitor her actions as governor.

And I have to note the use of the term "Democrat Party." This is a way you can tell a Republican, sort of like catching a Canadian from her pronunciation of the word "out." As I understand it, using Democrat Party was a conscious Republican effort to denigrate the Democratic Party by replacing the official name with one that sounded harsher. I didn't find a good credible citation, but you can see a discussion of the issue here.

Paragraph 3:

Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned."

First, when was there decency in American politics? If I recall my history, things were pretty wild in Jefferson's day. If a politician uses the kids to pump up his image, but the image the candidate is portraying is misleading, then the kids are fair game. Bristol's unwed motherhood was announced by Palin. If a blogger had announced the pregnancy before Palin did it would have been a disaster, so she really had to do it. But the irony of the pregnancy, given Palin's stand on abstinence-only-education, is certainly newsworthy. Picking on a baby's behavior makes no sense since a baby is not responsible. On the other hand, the baby is totally unaware of the debate. And despite Stapleton's take on this, I don't see the picture as being about the baby.

OK, I do understand Stapleton's plea to Obama to somehow censor Linda. After all, among the Republicans, especially in the Bush2 years, everyone was expected to toe the party line. Obviously, from the Republican perspective, if they assume the Democrats are the same, Linda doesn't say anything without approval from the Oval Office. And if she does, she should be edged out. . Well, that image of Democrats is a joke.


To a certain extent, I find the constant attacks on Palin by fellow bloggers to be borderline reasonable. The pointing out of ethical violations - even those that are rejected by Palin's favorite review board - is certainly reasonable. The bloggers do not have access to all the available information and may not be able to prove the violation, but at least these things should be pursued if there is reasonable evidence. Think of all the trouble that might have been avoided if bloggers had been poking into the relationships between Bill Allen and various legislators early on.

What I find less appealing are the snarky comments about clothing and behavior. But that's part of the American tradition of politics and the media. When Palin was on the Bob and Mark radio show, she laughed when they called cancer survivor and political rival Lyda Green a "cancer" and a "bitch." And I recall Palin being the attack dog in the McCain campaign. So let's cut out the crocodile tears here.


One More Thing

To put the religious tone of the first paragraph into context, we can look at the language of Ahmad Khamani from a Reuters article:

ISLAMIC LAW

Ahmad Khatami, a member of the powerful Assembly of Experts, said the judiciary should charge leading "rioters" as "mohareb" or one who wages war against God.

"I want the judiciary to ... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," Khatami told worshippers at Tehran University on Friday.

"They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran's Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as "mohareb" is execution.

He too is equating the demonstrators' behavior to desecration. At least Khamani is a religious leader and an official of a religious nation. That may be Palin's dream, but so far it isn't the case.

Two Degrees of Separation

Alaska is a small place. There's two degrees of separation. People who want to know can easily find out what everyone else is doing. Because of that, many people tend to look the other way. And we're relatively tolerant of politicians' personal peccadilloes. This is one of the reasons that people weren't looking under rocks for problems with Palin the way they are now. It wasn't an issue. Palin didn't use her children as campaign props when she ran for governor. How she raised them was not related to how she governed.

The state's population density is one person per square mile. Ok, there are lots of square miles with no one at all that balance off Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and the other population centers. But to get a sense of this, I'll use another NYE (New York Equivalency). If New York State - state, not city - had the population density of Alaska, it would have a population of 47,213 people.

With so few people, with two degrees of separation, when things happen here, people know.

And we've seen a radical change since August 29. Before that date, for example, the the bi-partisan Legislative Council (which tends to business when the legislators aren't in session)

...voted 12-0 to spend up to $100,000 "to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."

(Anchorage Daily News, July 27, 2008) The Governor said she and all her staff would voluntarily cooperate.

Supporters as well as detractors of the Republican governor generally agreed the legislative investigation is needed into the circumstances leading up to Monegan's dismissal.

"There's a big question about what happened. The public wants to know what happened," said Fairbanks Democratic Rep. David Guttenberg, a Legislative Council member. "There's something that doesn't quite smell right. The governor's not going to appoint a special prosecutor to look at whether she's abused power."

Guttenberg said Palin didn't help matters with her long, rambling press release a week ago in which she and some of her top aides tried to refute Monegan. The press release was titled "Palin Responds to Latest Falsehoods."

Sen. Gene Therriault of North Pole, leader of the small Republican Senate minority that generally has backed Palin's policies, said he expects the governor will cooperate, and if she's cleared, the investigation could strengthen her.

"Unfortunately, with partisan politics and talk shows and bloggers, there's probably just as much noise as substance," he said. "Hopefully, what the investigator can do is sift through it and see if there's any legitimacy."

Senate President Lyda Green, a Wasilla Republican [and not a Palin fan] and member of the Legislative Council, said the investigation is "absolutely" needed.

All that was one month before Palin was the surprise pick of John McCain. At the time I questioned the need to investigate the firing since Monegan served at the Governor's pleasure, but it might be worthwhile to look into the charges of going around regular channels to get Trooper Wooten fired. At most, the Governor would be reminded that there are laws and procedures and that she isn't above the law.

But now? CBS (among many others) reports:

A lawyer for Palin had said earlier this week that the governor would not speak to investigators, preferring to have the investigation transferred to a state personnel board (whose three members are appointed by the governor) for review. Palin had previously said she would cooperate with the probe.

Post Palin selection, it seems like the Rove shock troops have invaded Alaska. The same sorts of tactics that the White House used with Congressional investigations are being used now - refusal to recognize jurisdiction, refusal to appear, attacks on the integrity of the Council, and blatant lies.

State Representative Les Gara said

It's sad. It's presidential politics turning this small community, this small state, unfortunately, into a battleground. And I don't like it at all. I don't like what's going on.

Anchorage attorney and author of two highly regarded books on the Politics of Alaska Native Land, Don Mitchell, and who worked closely with Senator Stevens over the years, writes on the Alaska Dispatch [Thanks for the heads-up, Gryphen] of watching Bristol and Levi sitting together at Palin's Saturday morning's pep rally in Anchorage.

Bristol and Levi sat shoulder-to-shoulder. But not once did they look at each other, speak to each other, or in any way acknowledge each other’s physical presence.

He goes on to describe the deal he, as an attorney, would have gone after for the Johnston family:

Pader Johnston has disconnected the Johnston family's land line. So I can’t call him to ask what kind of deal he cut. But if Levi was my kid, the deal I would have cut would, at an absolute minimum, have been: $500,000 for from now to the November election. If McCain-Palin win, a $ 1 million signing bonus to take the trip down the aisle. Then, for the duration of the McCain-Palin administration, $100,000 a month for every month Mr. and Mrs. Johnston live under the same roof, and $50,000 a month for every month that they remain married but do not.

That’s chump change for the RNC. And if, in the best case for the nation, it turns out to be only a $500,000 payday for sixty days of work, that’s a life changing grubstake for an eighteen-year-old kid and more than enough to enable Levi to make his child support payments.

Mitchell is not a lightweight in Alaska. If his suspicion that Levi's family has been paid off for Levi to be good until after the election proves true, then is another example of that we are playing big league hard ball in Alaska now.

Palin's Loyalty to Alaska Forces Resignation - Tea Leaf Time

[Cut to the chase: looking at this press release, sentence by sentence, I get one message: " Something bad is going down and I'm quitting so it doesn't hurt Alaska."]

A friend called me to ask what I knew.

S: About what?
KS: About Palin's resignation.
S: You're kidding.
KS: No, I thought you might know something you can't print.
S: I know much less than some people think.

OK, it's tea leaf time. All I have is the press release to sift through. If you want to skip down to the press release which is below the tea reading, click here.

Warning: I'm just looking at the words in the press release here and what they suggest and don't suggest. I'm not second guessing whether it was written in good faith or with a clear understanding of what it implies and doesn't imply.


Quote 1

“People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska,” said Governor Palin. “Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine.”

". . . serving [Alaska's] people is the greatest honor I could imagine" implies

• So, I'm not resigning because I want to.
• Being President of the US would not be as great an honor.

Early Palin fan, and someone I never expected to quote, Jonah Goldberg, suggests in a letter to Palin published in the National Review and reprinted in today's ADN that Palin's got great charisma but needs to get up to speed on the issues.

So here’s my advice. Stay home and do your job and your homework. You’ll still be a national figure come the primaries. But if you can’t surprise your detractors with your grasp of policy when you re-emerge on the national stage, you won’t win the nomination. More important, you won’t deserve to.

By resigning, she's not taking his advice to do her job. If she were planning to take his advice about doing her homework so she can be a national figure in 2012, then why would she make serving Alaska the highest honor imaginable? And why not some word that would just hint at doing some homework?

Quote 2

“I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is not the easiest path,” said Governor Palin after the announcement.

The right path for Alaska, she seems to be saying, is without her as governor. Why would that be? Has she been watching Sanford do damage control as he tries to hang on as governor of South Carolina? (No I'm not suggesting he's Trig's daddy.)


Quote 3

“Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional ‘Lame Duck’ status in this particular climate would just be another dose of ‘politics as usual,’ something I campaigned against and will always oppose.

Ok, deciding not to run for reelection (without the context of the earlier quotes) could be for many reasons. She could then be free of state obligations as she prepared for 2012.

She does play her maverick theme (isn't 'politics as usual' more or less the opposite of maverick?) which could be seen as a hint that she's going to be in the national race again.

Except, what does "in this climate" mean? It doesn't sound like she's talking about a good climate. The press release has an Anchorage byline and here the sun is shining brightly and it's about 70˚ out. So she isn't talking about weather. What exactly is she referring to?

The ragtag pack of local bloggers shouldn't amount to more than a cloud briefly hiding the sun for a serious presidential candidate. Does she mean the Vanity Fair article, and the public debate among Republicans that's going on about whether she's fit to run for President, is raining on her parade? But that storm is in the Lower 48 and shouldn't disturb her being Governor of Alaska.

Not only isn't she going to run for reelection, she's not going to be a lame duck. She uses her disgust with 'politics as usual' to explain her stand on lame ducks. Let's play that logic out. Once you are reelected to your last allowable term, you are a lame duck. So, you should just quit after you are elected if it gets cloudy? Maybe everyone should be limited to one term. But then everyone would be a lame duck... You can see where that logic leads.

Or is this just a cover for why she's going to be the first Alaska governor to quit before her term is up? I think Nixon was the first (and only) US president to quit before his term was up. People generally don't quit when things are going well, even when they are rocky. Just when they are disastrous. [Correction: Wally Hickel quit as governor of Alaska to accept an appointment from President Nixon to be Secretary of the Interior, a position that greatly impacts Alaska.]


Quote 4

It is my duty to always protect our great state. With that in mind, my family and I determined that it is best to make a difference this summer, and I am willing to change things, so that this administration, with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future, can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.

Duty? As governor she has an official duty, but if she resigns, then she won't have that official duty. But I can accept that she feels a personal duty to protect Alaska. But we're still talking about Alaska, not the US.

so that this administration, with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future, can continue without interruption

What's the interruption? She's pulling out, as I read this, because something is going to happen that would interrupt Alaska's journey to the future if she were Governor. So it isn't something about the state, it's about her. Something that would interfere with her running the state. Maybe there's another way to read this, but that's what it says to me.

I can't make hide nor hair of "best to make a difference this summer and I am willing to change things." It comes out of the blue in this sentence. The only thing preceding that suggests change is needed is hidden between the lines.


Quote 5

I look forward to helping others – to fight for our state and our country, and campaign for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops, and energy independence.”

This sentence leaves some hope for Palin supporters. She'll be around to help, not just at the state level, but national as well. But this, in the context of the whole press release, is what she'll do with her new spare time, it isn't the reason she's leaving Juneau.


Quote 6

The list of her accomplishments is too long to quote. Just go down and look at it.

This list could be interpreted, as writing the first draft of her legacy as Governor. Optimistic Palin supporters could see it as part of her resume in her application for the US Presidency. If the body of the press release had even had a hint of moving to bigger and better things, they might take heart. But it doesn't. I won't even touch the questions about the legitimacy of the list or what is missing.

Using logical analysis to parse what Sarah Palin says is sort of like using a tape measure to see how good a concert was. But by looking at what's written in the press release (as well as what's not), I don't see hint at better offers - I doubt Obama has asked her to be ambassador to Russia. Maybe she's started to realize how much work writing a book is and doesn't want to risk the $11 million. But the press release itself is all about her love of Alaska and not wanting to interrupt the State's progress. The basic message I read from this: "Something bad is going down soon, and I'm going to resign from office so that my problems don't interfere with the State's well being."

But now that we know there's a cat in the bag, can she keep it in there for three more weeks?

.................................................................................


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 09-167

GOVERNOR PALIN ANNOUNCES NO SECOND TERM

NO LAME DUCK SESSION EITHER

July 3, 2009, Anchorage, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin announced today that she will not seek a second term as Governor of the State of Alaska and will relegate the
power of governor to Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell in order to serve Alaska’s best interests. Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will move into Parnell’s current role.

“People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska,” said Governor Palin. “Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine.”

Standing outside her home in Wasilla, Alaska, Governor Palin reflected upon some of the administration’s accomplishments for Alaska as she approaches her final year in office.

“I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is not the easiest path,” said Governor Palin after the announcement. “Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional ‘Lame Duck’ status in this particular climate would just be another dose of ‘politics as usual,’ something I campaigned against and will always oppose. It is my duty to always protect our great state. With that in mind, my family and I determined that it is best to make a difference this summer, and I am willing to change things, so that this administration, with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future, can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success. I look forward to helping others – to fight for our state and our country, and campaign for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops, and energy independence.”

The transfer of power will occur following the Governor’s picnic in Fairbanks on July 26. At that point in time, Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell will be sworn in and Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will assume his role as Lieutenant Governor.

Governor Palin will spend July 4th in Juneau.

###

Selected Accomplishments of the Palin Administration

General
· Transferred more control of public issues to the local level Natural Resources
· Created the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office to oversee responsible development
· Held the line for Alaskans on Point Thomson that encouraged drilling
· Restructured the state’s oil taxes to create a clear and equitable valuation formula for our oil and gas
· Initiated and implemented the largest energy project in the world through the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act
· Removed government from the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands
Ethics
· Ushered in ethics reform
· Cleaned up previously accepted unethical actions affecting development Fiscal Notes
· Slowed the rate of government growth
· Worked with the Legislature to place billions of dollars in savings
· Vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars in capital budget line items
· Reduced Alaska’s dependence on federal earmarks by nearly 85%
· Eliminated state-funded personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, and junkets
· Refused a pay raise, along with the Lieutenant Governor Education
· Provided unprecedented support for education initiatives Public Safety
· Filled long-vacant public safety positions over the last year Corrections
· Broke ground on the new state prison Fish and Game
· Maintained biologically-sound wildlife management for abundance Environment
· Established first sub-Cabinet on climate change
Legal
· State’s rights protected in two recent victories handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court





For those who must know, the tea is a Chinese jasmine. Labrador tea would have been more appropriate, but I'd have to go pick some first.

Celebrity Product Placement and Palin's Arctic Cat Coat

I'm a little behind on what's going on in Alaska, but I see that Linda Kellen Biegel at Blue Oasis has riled up a bunch of folks for filing an ethics complaint against Gov. Palin.

The complaint alleges a conflict of interest when Governor Palin wore specially designed snow-machine gear advertising her husband Todd's biggest Iron Dog sponsor, Arctic Cat Inc. She did so while acting in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Alaska and official starter of the Iron Dog Snow Machine Race.

[The picture is from the Blue Oasis post too so you can see what the complaint is about.]

According to later posts, she's gotten a lot of nasty comments, emails, and phone calls. Some of the comments on her blog carry a theme of "So what's the big deal, I wear logo stuff all the time on all my clothes."

So I googled around to find out about product placement and celebrity endorsements.

In an article published last October in Harvard Business School Working Knowledge Sarah Jane Gilbert wrote about Harvard Business Professor Anita Elberse whose favorite research topic is described as "the value created and captured by superstars."

Anita Elberse: The sports marketing industry, covering everything from television rights to endorsements, sponsorships, and merchandising, is an important sector and growing rapidly. In its Global Entertainment and Media Outlook, PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the sports industry accounted for around $50 billion in revenues in the United States in 2007, up from just under $35 billion in 2001. On a global scale, total revenues are expected to be nearly $100 billion this year, compared with $70 billion in 2001.

As far as endorsements are concerned, marketers increasingly turn to athletes to promote their products. The marketing executives I spoke with told me they value these endorsements especially because it is getting more and more difficult to reach a wide group of consumers using traditional ways of advertising such as television commercials, and harder to gain credibility with commercial messages.

You can read the whole Elberse interview at the Harvard link above. Here's one more excerpt:

[B]ecause star athletes and other celebrities are "brands" that have certain meanings for consumers, companies can spend millions of dollars to align themselves with those celebrities. They hope those celebrities' brands "rub off" on the products they are trying to sell, be it apparel, cars, or beauty products. . .

Considering the limited free time an athlete like Sharapova has in a year filled with training sessions and tournaments across the globe—less than 20 days remain for sponsorship commitments—I found it remarkable to learn how much value is generated.

There are also articles that suggest that the return on investment isn't really there. InnovationsReport writes, for example, that

Advertisements featuring endorsements by celebrities such as David Beckham are less effective than those featuring ordinary people, new research suggests.

Perhaps the marketing people just like being around celebrities so pushing endorsements gives them that opportunity. Whether on the whole these product placements are worth the money (we all now know about the fallibility of banking experts who pushed the various home loan packages, so why should marketing experts who push celebrity endorsements be any more reliable?) the fact is that businesses believe in them enough to spend tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars every year on them.

In an article about strategies for getting celebrities to publicly use their products, Jonathan Holiff, describe as the president and CEO of The Hollywood-Madison Group, offers three strategies for getting products out to celebrities.

1. Gifting the talent (this usually involves supplying products for gift bags at live events)

2. Product seeding (products are distributed more widely in hopes of securing a promotional benefit and kicking off a trend)

3. Barter relationships (individual celebrities agree to participate in custom programs in exchange for valuable products).

He says the most effective is the third, barter relationships. He goes on to give an example of promoting the Sony CD Mavica digital camera.

Sony wanted to involve celebrities with its products and wanted that involvement to influence the public in a meaningful way. They sought a high-profile event—preferably benefiting charity—upon which to launch a yearlong press campaign in time for the Christmas shopping season. The focus: to promote the simplicity of CD-based photography.

So, with a limited budget, Holiff's company suggested getting celebrities to take pictures of what "freedom" means to them, that would be auctioned off for charity. The point was to use several ploys here to entice the celebrities into participating:

Such an artistic challenge, coupled with the prospect of receiving free Sony products, not only served to induce celebrities to participate but also offered us an extraordinary opportunity: to frame these pictures and mount an exhibition that raised money for charity. Indeed, the charity component attracted higher-caliber celebrities and provided the "hook" to draw media attention. . .

Fifteen top celebrities demonstrated the practical use of Sony's product and authorized the use of their names, likenesses and opinions about the product for press and marketing purposes (for one year). Sony received free advertising for its product in print and online for three months (worth an estimated $100,000), as well as 3.6 million Web page impressions (auction as a whole) and national press coverage, including Entertainment Tonight.

Clearly, some celebrity marketing campaigns work better than others. Martin Roll, who is described on VentureRepublic as a

world-renowned thought-leader on value creation through brand equity

describes some essentials of celebrity endorsements.

* Attractiveness of the celebrity: This principle states that an attractive endorser will have a positive impact on the endorsement. The endorser should be attractive to the target audience in certain aspects like physical appearance, intellectual capabilities, athletic competence, and lifestyle. It has been proved that an endorser that appears attractive as defined above has a grater chance of enhancing the memory of the brand that he/she endorses.

* Credibility of the celebrity: This principle states that for any brand-celebrity collaboration to be successful, the personal credibility of the celebrity is crucial. Credibility is defined here as the celebrities’ perceived expertise and trustworthiness. As celebrity endorsements act as an external cue that enable consumers to sift through the tremendous brand clutter in the market, the credibility factor of the celebrity greatly influences the acceptance with consumers.

* Meaning transfer between the celebrity and the brand: This principle states that the success of the brand-celebrity collaboration heavily depends on the compatibility between the brand and the celebrity in terms of identity, personality, positioning in the market vis-à-vis competitors, and lifestyle. When a brand signs on a celebrity, these are some of the compatibility factors that have to exist for the brand to leverage the maximum from that collaboration.

Palin scores high on the physical attractiveness. I would say the audiences are split on her, but she has some extremely enthusiastic followers along with those fairly strongly opposed. So it's mixed on the second criterion. But surely there aren't too many - maybe none - celebrities of Palin's level who is so compatible to snow machine racing. So, this is probably a pretty good celebrity catch for Arctic Cat.

But Ronnie05 on his blog points out another celebrity endorsement:

Research In Motion and Blackberry do not require any celebrity endorsement. Why would they when the biggest celebrity in the world, the single “hero” in the world and in America, is doing it for them and is not charging a single cent. Barrack Obama’s penchant for the “Blackberry” has steadily found its way into the press.

The question is whether Palin's use of the Arctic Cat coats is the same thing as Obama's use of his Blackberry. The Blackberry is a tool that many people use and presumably Obama picked his up on his own and the press happened to catch him using it. I guess we should dispatch someone to find out if the Blackberry company gave it to him in hopes he would be photographed using it.


Given the amount of money spent on celebrity placements, and the careful planning placement specialists seem to go through to get the right people to publicly use their products, I think it would be of interest to us all to hear exactly how it came to be that Gov. Palin wore that coat at the opening of the Iron Dog race.

Two basic questions we need answered are:

1. How did Palin get the coats? Did she go out an buy it? Was it something that she had in the closet and that she wears all the time? Was it a gift from Arctic Cat?

2. Did Arctic Cat in any way influence Palin to wear the coat at the start of the Iron Dog race?

If it was a gift from Arctic Cat, given what I've been reading on product placement, it probably wasn't just an accident that the Governor of Alaska opened the Iron Dog Snow Machine Race wearing the coat. There were probably product placement pros carefully plotting the whole thing.

Just as Jonathan Holiff outlines how they plotted to get celebrities to use the Sony cameras by setting up a contest that benefited charity, Arctic Cat's marketing specialists probably said, "This will look so natural. We already sponsor her husband, so why wouldn't we give him and his family jackets? And then all she has to do is wear it when she opens the race. Bingo, we'll have pictures of Sarah Palin, one of the most well known celebrities in the US, who also happens to be linked in the public's mind to snow machines, all over the place."

There doesn't even have to be any sort of additional payment to Palin (though Biegel's complaint says Arctic Cat is Todd Palin's biggest Iron Dog sponsor, so the Palin family is getting something from the company.) And Palin likely did not give them any rights to use the pictures (though we should ask about that too just to be sure).

And Palin might have been lulled into all this just as all those celebrities who get gifts are. You get a free camera, we challenge your ego by getting you to take pictures we're going to sell for charity, and we'll throw in "Freedom" as the theme for the pictures. Who can resist?

But Palin isn't just a celebrity. She's a government official. She's a representative of the People of Alaska, the head of our government. Our governor must separate private product endorsements from her official duties as governor. And yes, making appearances at the openings of events, cutting ribbons for new roads, etc. in her capacity as governor are official duties. [Would she have been invited if she were not the governor?] And furthermore, this is a politician who became governor in part on her strong stance against public officials whose personal interests and public interests overlapped.

So for those who say they wear clothing with brand names attached all the time, I would say I suspect this isn't some trivial incident comparable to her happening to put on Levis and someone complains that the little red tag in back is an endorsement. These are big conspicuous coats with giant endorsements all over them. This is big business and potentially worth lots of money for Arctic Cat.

So, did Sarah buy these coats or were they given to her?
How did she decide to wear them to the opening of the race?
Did Arctic Cat and/or their marketing company have a plan for getting Palin to wear the coat at the opening of the race?

If this were an isolated event, I might be more likely to lean with those who say to give her a pass on this. But sometimes the problem is a series of small events, no single event being that big a deal. And if we are serious about having politicians who aren't tainted by special interests, then we have to call every single case so that politicians finally learn that their jobs are to serve the public without getting extra benefits for themselves along the way. If all these sorts of special perks are too much of a hassle, then maybe the people who run for office to get them will find more hassle-free endeavors.

And it means holding Democrats accountable as well as Republicans.

Did Ranked Choice Voting Cost Palin The Election?

After the election results for Alaska's ranked choice voting election to fill the remainder of US Rep Don Young, Sarah Palin blamed her loss to Mary Peltola on Ranked Choice Voting.  

“Ranked-choice voting was sold as the way to make elections better reflect the will of the people. As Alaska – and America – now sees, the exact opposite is true. The people of Alaska do not want the destructive democrat agenda to rule our land and our lives, but that’s what resulted from someone’s experiment with this new crazy, convoluted, confusing ranked-choice voting system. It’s effectively disenfranchised 60% of Alaska voters."  [From her campaign website.]

The quick answer to the title question is "No".  

Below (way below) is a video discussing this question.  I don't know who these people are - it looks like it's a podcast from The Hill.   (Biasly rates The Hill "moderate" with an ever so slight lean to the right.)  But they do more or less reflect my sense of Ranked Choice Voting.  

What they don't discuss is how getting rid of the closed Republican primary - having an open primary with all candidates and picking the top four to be in the final Ranked Choice general election.  

A closed Republican primary would have probably led to a Palin victory and two major candidates - one Republican and one Democrat (Palin and Peltola) running in the general election, with some minor third party candidates.  

Would Peltola have been able to defeat Palin in that sort of general election?  We won't know.  But we do know that half of Begich's second votes went to either Peltola or no one.  Here's what it looked like on the Alaska Elections website:

click on images to enlarge

So it could well be that Peltola may have pulled out the victory under the old system.  Lots of Alaska remember how Palin quit being governor after only finishing part of the term.  Many also remember the issues with the Palin's oldest son over slashing school bus tires and opening his senior year in Michigan, and the giant brawl involving the Palin family and a Wasilla party.  

And long time Alaska Republicans remember how she publicly called out the GOP Party Chair for having a conflict of interest as a member of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission while, as GOP chair, soliciting donations from the oil companies the commission regulated.  

The benefit of Ranked Choice Voting, as they say in the video, is that you can vote for candidates that aren't likely to win without throwing away your vote, because you pick the one you like the most and then the next one, and if you like, the ones after that.  If you first choice loses, your second choice candidate (gets your vote instead.)

The Republicans - Begich and Palin - fought with each other in this campaign.  Ranked Choice Voting with an open primary means you can't alienate too many voters and it, theoretically, eliminates the extreme candidates who would win in a closed primary.  

There's also an interesting NYTimes article on this for those who can get past the paywall.  It looks at how Alaska got ranked choice voting and highlights Katherine Gehl who has devoted herself to the idea.  It mentions that an initiative in Missouri didn't get enough votes, but one in Nevada this year did.  Also interesting the Marc Elias who has been fighting hard with lawsuits against GOP attempts to deny that Biden won the election, worked hard against the Ranked Choice Initiative in Nevada.  Elias is a smart guy so I need to understand his opposition better. 

Also, a reminder for non-Alaskans, August 16 was also the primary election for the actual (not just the remaining months of Young's seat) Alaska House race.  Here's a list of the candidates, their vote tallies, and red marks the four top candidate who go on to the general election in November.

Tara Sweeney is both a Republican AND an Alaska Native Woman.  She is more aligned with oil interests.  I suspect that Alaska Natives will give Peltola their second vote if they vote first for Sweeney.  Will the Republicans come up with a more cooperative strategy and direct their voters to cast their next votes for the other Republicans?  Will it matter?  

Peltola has now gotten much more name recognition and more people have seen her.  She's so much more humble than the two candidates she beat in the Special Election, and unlike Palin, she speaks in whole sentences and in a calm tone.  Unless someone gets 50% + one vote on the first ballot, we won't know for two weeks, when all the ballots are in.  But if someone gets 48% in the first round and the others are much further back, that should be a good indicator too.  

Catching Palin's Numbers

From innumeracy.com:

Innumeracy: A term meant to convey a person's inability to make sense of the numbers that run their lives.

........................................................................................


There's nothing wrong with appearing pretty and being bubbly. These are great attributes for a politician. But there has to be substance as well. Andrew Halcro wrote last year:

I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do. . .

"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.

So, when we get some facts from Palin's office, we should pay attention. Last week, this press release was made available on the state website:


Which closed with this:

The critical part of that State press release, the part where we get Palin's version of facts, is that last sentence about spending "millions of dollars."

At the time, Phil at Progressive Alaska wrote:

I suspect that statement is complete bullshit. Millions of dollars means from $2,000,000.00 on up, if I am correct.

I challenge Alaska's mainstream media to attempt to determine just how much this has cost Alaska taxpayers, and to have it broken down, case by case.

Well, in today's Anchorage Daily News, Sean Cockerham met the challenge:

Ethics complaints against Gov. Sarah Palin and top members of her administration have cost the state personnel board nearly $300,000 over the past year, almost two-thirds of which appear to be from the Troopergate investigation of the governor.

But Sean doesn't quote that "millions of dollars" charge from the June 23rd press release. All he says in the article is this:

The governor's office has said 15 "frivolous" ethics complaints against Palin or her staff, some on issues raised by bloggers, have been dismissed with no findings she violated the executive branch ethics act. "How much will this blogger's asinine political grandstanding cost all of us in time and money?" she asked about a March complaint.

It seems to me that the most significant part of this story is the gap between the Palin allegation last week and the actual cost of the complaints. Deducting the Troopergate costs - which resulted from Palin filing a complaint against herself so that the friendlier Personnel Board would review it instead of a Legislative Committee - the cost of complaints was down almost to $100,000.

Anyone who knows anything about math knows that an error of that magnitude is outrageous. It's like estimating a $100,000 house to cost about $2 million; a $10 scarf to cost $200. Either way it reflects poorly on the Governor's office. Either they were just lying or they are innumerate.

OK, the press release adds in public records searches, but the way they figure those charges is also grossly inflated and seems to be aimed at preventing people from gaining access to public records. At best it would still leave a huge magnitude of error.

There's a reason Palin doesn't use facts. This became clear during the presidential campaign. She's not on top of facts that matter in her job.


The second significant part of this whole fiasco, is the tone of the press release which makes it sound like people who file complaints are 'outrageous' and 'malicious' and 'asinine.' I understand that talk show hosts use divisive and derisive language to boost their ratings.

But the governor of all the people of Alaska should recognize complaints for what they are: a way for people to get accountability from their elected officials. Sure, there are people who maliciously file complaints, though I think in these cases the people filing the complaints believe they have legitimate grievances. But that's why we have courts and review boards to sort things out. I think that active gadflies serve an important purpose. When politicians know their actions and words will be questioned in the newspapers, on television, and on blogs, they will document their positions better before acting. That's how we get better government. Besides, professional review boards have standards that complaints must meet before opening full hearings to get rid specious filings.

My advice to the governor is to put on a happy face and welcome any charges because that will allow a legitimate review board to get all the information and to show the public what really happened. And to embrace the critics for making her do her job better. Remember: honey, not vinegar.

But I'm afraid that the governor's folks, unlike the talk show hosts, take this all very seriously and personally. It's as though they see themselves as force of goodness and light and anyone who opposes them must be allied with the forces of evil.

So, one last thing. Sean, why didn't you point out the discrepancy between the "millions of dollars" statement and the actual amount? Or did an editor cut it out? That itself would be an interesting story.

Elitism, Intelligence, Sarah Palin, Joe Miller

[I've been trying to write a concise, coherent and insightful post dealing with the attacks on educated people.  But as I read more, the attack seems not against just the educated, but the Elite.  But Palin's notion of  "The Elite" doesn't simply mean 'smart' and certainly doesn't mean 'upper class.'  Let's just call this a first draft on the theme.]

Sept. 4, 2009 (MSNBC)

“I’m not a member of the permanent political establishment,” Palin said. “And I’ve learned quickly these past few days that if you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. . ."

October 24, 2008 (WN)

Q:  Who is a member of the elite?
Sarah Palin: . . . just people who think they are better than everyone else. . . John McCain and I are so committed to serving every American, hardworking, middle class Americans who are so desiring this economy getting put back on the right track. . .  [Emphasis added]
Q:  It's not education, it's not income based?
Sarah Palin:  Anyone who thinks they're better than anyone else.  
John McCain:  I know where a lot of them live.
Q:  Where's that?
John McCain:  In our nation's capital and New York City. . . I know who these elitists are, the ones she never went to a cocktail party with in Georgetown. . . They think they can dictate to America what they believe rather than let Americans think for themselves.

[Note:  Merriam's Online dictionary shows that while her definition is vaguely in the ballpark - an outsider's view of 'c' maybe - it doesn't convey the standard usage of that term.  McCain's is close to 'd.' 

a . . .the choice part : cream <the elite of the entertainment world> 

b  . . .the best of a class <superachievers who dominate the computer elite — Marilyn Chase> 

c . . .the socially superior part of society <how the elite live — A P World> <how the French-speaking elite…was changing — Economist> 

d : a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence <members of the ruling elite> <the intellectual elites of the country>]

January 2009 Anchorage Daily News:

The dinner was held in the heart of Washington, D.C., at the Capital Hilton within sight of the White House. Palin's invitation to the Alfalfa Club was "a coup," said Letitia Baldrige, who served as the White House social secretary and chief of staff to Jacqueline Kennedy.

"It's something that everybody who's anybody in politics wants to be invited to," Baldrige said.

If a roasting by the most powerful people in America is a sign you've made it, then Palin had clearly arrived. Or, at the very least, was acknowledged Saturday night as one of the most interesting women in American politics.

November 23, 2009, From Talking Points Memo

O'REILLY: Let me be very bold and fresh again. Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?
PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense, and I have, I believe, the values that are reflective of so many other American values. And I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the the [sic] kind of spineless... a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fat resume that's based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I'm not saying that has to be me.

So now the elite are spineless and propped up with an Ivy League education and a fat resume - that doesn't reflect hard work or private sector/free enterprise principles.  So the wealthiest of the wealthy who have made their money through free enterprise aren't in the elite?  

October 25, 2010 Right Wing News - Kathleen McKinley:

. . .These Ivy league schools have gone from being training grounds for Christian missionaries and ministers to propaganda factories for every leftist radical failed ideology known to man. Marxism, Darwinism, Freudianism, communism, multiculturalism, relativism, naturalism, positivism, socialism, liberalism, egalitarianism, feminist studies, gay studies, transgender studies, transvestite studies, outcome-based education, and radical environmentalism are not only taught, but celebrated. 

McKinley says this without a trace of irony given that Yale (she starts out mentioning Yale) was among colleges traditionally reserved for the sons of the economic and social upper class of this nation (often known as the elite), which had quotas for Jews and African-Americans, and didn't admit women at all.  No irony at all, even though both Presidents Bush graduated from Yale as well as William F. Buckley, and Clarence Thomas.

And Joe Miller.


Palin argues that elitists "think they are better than anyone else."  Is this as opposed to people who think they know more than anyone else?  After all, Palin, and her protege Joe Miller, talk as if they have a monopoly on the Truth, and everyone else is simply wrong.  Their statements are strong, declarative statements.  There are no qualifiers.  They leave no room for the possibility that they might not be 100% right.  Their opponents are 100% wrong.   It's clearly black and white.  Look at Miler's issues page, for example:

The only answer [There is only one option and I know what it is, if you disagree, you're wrong] is to return our federal government to the limits prescribed by our Constitution. Federal powers not specified in the Constitution are reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment.

I support the repeal of ObamaCare. First and foremost, there is no Constitutional authority for it. [The Constitutional authority isn't just flimsy, it flat out doesn't exist.]

I am unequivocally pro-life and life must be protected from the moment of conception to the time of natural death. [There's nothing you can tell me or show me that will change my mind.]

The problem here is that social truths aren't that easy.  Conception is one point on a continuum of when life could be said to begin.  Another possible point on the continuum to mark the start of life is birth.  There is no way to prove it.  Different communities define these 'truths' differently.  Unless you believe that God has defined all this.  But then, different gods have said different things.  And even different Christians interpret the Christian god differently.  And what is natural death?  Is dying in a motorcycle crash  or from a gun shot a natural death?


What makes Palin and Miller think they have a monopoly on the Truth?  That they know better than everyone else?  Why has Palin tapped into some clear need among many members of the US public?

First, her elitist language can clearly be seen as taking on the insiders on behalf of the outsiders.  "People who think they are better than anyone else" and who live in the nation's capital and New York (we all know these as power centers) and have parties that people like Sarah Palin aren't invited to are the Insiders.  All the rest of us are outsiders, in our own democracy.   What Palin has done so well, is create her own clique, her own inside, of which she is the center.

Second, is to attack those insiders as not being as smart as they think they are.  Hey, I taught at a university.  I can tell you a lot more than Palin can about PhD's doing dumb things.  I've worked with them up close.  I've done dumb things myself. But I can also offer an explanation of why many PhD's might look dumb at times. 

Howard Gardner came up with the concept of multiple intelligences.  His  basic argument is that IQ is just one of different ways that people can be intelligent.  In 1993 he listed seven intelligences and later added the last one:

• Linguistic Intelligence
• Musical Intelligence
• Logical-Mathematical Intelligence
• Spatial Intelligence
• Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence
• Interpersonal Intelligence
• Intrapersonal Intelligence
• Naturalist Intelligence  

You can get his FAQ's regarding multiple intelligence which explains all this with a lot more complexity and nuance.

In his book Extraordinary Minds, Howard Gardner defined intelligence* as

"the ability to solve problems or fashion products that are valued in at least one cultural setting or community."

Of the eight listed above, the linguistic and logical intelligences are those most favored in school examinations. These are the 'smarts' that IQ tests recognize.

But people who have these kinds of intelligences may or may not rank high on the other intelligences - such as interpersonal or bodily-kinesthetic.  We can see 'smart' people, with fancy degrees, who are physically clumsy and awkward and don't read interpersonal signals well. 

So, it is easy for an athlete who barely graduated to make fun of a famous scholar who trips over his shoelaces and is awkward when dealing with the opposite sex.  We all do better in the setting where our best intelligences are rewarded.  

What is critical is that we recognize and appreciate where people are 'smart' and where they aren't.  If I go in for surgery, I want a doctor who has linguistic, logical, and kinesthetic (good eye-hand coordination) intelligence.  If I go to a concert, I expect to hear someone with, minimally, good musical intelligence. 

Sarah Palin, it would seem to me, is shaky in terms of the two key academic intelligences (linguistic and logical-mathematical), but very strong on interpersonal and bodily-kinesthetic.  But people with higher linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences, while being able to see Palin's strengths, will judge her more by their own strengths, and thus not be impressed. 

Joe Miller, on the other hand, as a West Point and Yale graduate, has strong linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligences.   For some, Miller's elite Ivy League education at Yale might seem to disqualify him in the eyes of  Palin followers because he's clearly part of the elite who got trained in "every leftist radical failed ideology known to man" (from Kathleen McKinley above).

So he's both an elitist insider and all the evil things that means to Palin supporters.  But only people strong in logical-mathematical intelligence get too hung up on consistency of principles from one situation to the next.  Besides, one could argue that he went to Yale as a subversive, to learn what the enemy was teaching.   But Miller hasn't made that point himself to my knowledge.

But he does seem to think he's pretty smart.  As mentioned above, he states his positions with authority and certainty.  There's no question in his mind about his correctness.  Wickersham's Conscience pointed out:

Miller claims he [sic] “He quickly mastered the law.” Shucks, WC has been a lawyer for more than thirty-four years and can’t claim to have “mastered the law.”

A lot of this goes back to Socrates and the notion that a wise man is one who knows what he doesn't know.  I suspect that some of the anger at people with certified intelligence (degrees from elite universities or in respected fields) is aimed at those who assume that their intelligence in their specialized field transfers to other fields.  "Because I have a degree in one field means I must be smart in every other field." 

I think Joe Miller has slipped into this category. He isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is.  I'm not going to use examples of where I think he's philosophically wrong because those things are impossible to prove.  Instead I'll use more tangible examples, starting with his fiddling with the other attorneys' computers in Fairbanks.   

• He thought he was clever and knew that he could hide his use of the computers by erasing his tracks.  But he didn't know nearly as much as he needed to know and by clearing the caches, he probably caused the discovery of his antics much faster than had he just left the caches alone, because he erased everyone's passwords for databases they used every day.  He was smart enough to know about caches, but not smart enough to know he only knew part of what he needed to know.**

• He also wasn't smart enough to understand that having a private security guard was totally out of the norm in Alaska politics and would make him look silly.**
   
• And he wasn't smart enough to understand that having his body guards handcuff a journalist would resonate poorly.  He probably thought that people would see it as a legitimate blow against the 'lamestream' media.  And his supporters probably do.
   
• And he didn't understand that lying about his departure from the Fairbanks North Star Borough was going to be worse than getting it out of the way early in the campaign.  He seems to have thought that it was protected by personnel rules.  He hasn't been in Alaska long enough to have read about the Supreme Court, in the newspapers, deciding that people applying for high level policy jobs do not have the same privacy rights as regular employees.  And even though he's an attorney, he didn't look it up.

Only when he was up against the wall - with his own words that he lied in the computer incident and that he lied about it in the campaign, exposed - does he acknowledge his wisdom may not be absolute:

Miller has maintained the journalist was acting inappropriately, and he has never disavowed the handcuffing, but he says that other issues in his campaign were the result of naivete.

"Alaskans get to understand that, hey, they're electing someone like them. I've gone through trials, I have not always had a silver spoon, I've had challenges in life," Miller said at a recent debate. (from the Anchorage Daily News)

Naivete.  That just isn't Miller's style.  If he's naive about these things, what about his beliefs concerning the Constitution? 

But he is able to play Palin's outsider theme when he does this.  I'm like you regular Alaskans.  Flawed.  And, implied, an outsider. 

But if you go to the doctor, do you want someone just like you, or do you want some with specialized expertise and skill in medicine?  When you take your car to be repaired, do you want someone like you, or someone getting on-the-job training?

And when you elect someone to the US Senate, do you want someone just like you or someone with expertise and skill in public policy, power, and working with others?  As well as a developed sense of ethics?

I believe that the institution of the Senate forces people to play the game or become irrelevant.  Republicans, in recent years, have been more disciplined in keeping their members in line than the Democrats.  That means Republicans will have a harder time representing their state interests when they conflict with the party interests.

But individuals who use their intelligences well are able to play the game more successfully than others.  Some have the ability to block legislation.  Others can work out deals because they have empathy and can understand other people's needs and values and show respect for people with whom they don't agree.  They have the ability to actually create new legislation that improves people's lives.  No matter what, whoever gets elected to the US Senate becomes an insider compared to most other people.  They are in a club limited to 100 people.  Within that club, it is true, there are also insiders and outsiders. 

I think that's enough for now.  Just a note that this is just one possible line of interpretation of all of this.  I'm trying it out to see how it fits. 


*From the FAQ's Gardner defines intelligences differently:

an intelligence refers to a biopsychological potential of our species to process certain kinds of information in certain kinds of way. As such, it clearly involves processes that are carried out by dedicated neural networks. No doubt each of the intelligences has its characteristic neural processes, with most of them quite similar across human beings. Some of the processes might prove to be more customized to an individual.

The intelligence itself is not a content, but it is geared to specific contents. That is, the linguistic intelligence is activated when individuals encounter the sounds of language or when they wish to communicate something verbally to another person. However, the linguistic intelligence is not dedicated only to sound. It can be mobilized as well by visual information, when an individual decodes written text; and in deaf individuals, linguistic intelligence is mobilized by signs (including syntactically-arranged sets of signs) that are seen or felt.

**A newer story in the Alaska Dispatch cites Fairbanks co-workers saying Miller was paranoid about his personal safety and possible computer attacks on him and even requested a security detail.