Oh, this is too fascinating not to share!

[heidi]

It seems that Sarah Palin has been a member of the Alaska Independence Party.

ETA: Ah, not actually a member of the party in terms of her voter registration, but her husband was registered as a member of that party until 2002, and she has attended their events at least once and possibly more than that; she sent a message on video to their most recent meeting. /eta

Here's what their platform includes:

* A belief that "the vote for statehood was invalid because the people were not presented with the range of options available to them" and that "the federal government has since breached the contract for statehood on numerous occasions in over a dozen serious and substantial instances."
* A belief that there should be a vote on Alaskan secession.
* Remaining "steadfastly opposed to environmental regulations and actively promotes the private ownership and widespread development of Alaskan land."
* A platform which includes:

[A]mending the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.

[F]oster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.

[S]eek[ing] the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska[.]

She also said the following in a 2006 questionaire of all the gubernatorial candidates:

Q: Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?

PALIN: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance

As Daily Kos said, "when John McCain's grandfather graduated from the Naval Academy in 1906, the Pledge of Allegiance, as first written, was only fourteen years old. It would not be made the official pledge of the United States until 1942, six years after John McCain himself was born. When John McCain was born, the words "Under God" were not in the Pledge. They would not appear there until 1954, during McCain's senior year of high school."

Is John McCain a founding father now?

And let's not even get into the issue of how well abstinence-only "sex ed" worked for her daughter (who I sympathize with a thousand per cent for having to deal with this in the public eye, which she obviously never sought for herself).

So, a poll, title courtesy of Starship, of course.
[Poll #1252017]

Comments

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

I said, "let's not even get into the issue." To me, it's an aside, an irrelevant tangent from the real issues which include her already-known policy-preferences and the newly discovered - well, new to everyone outside Alaska - incorrect belief about the Pledge of Allegiance and separatist/secessionist platform of the Alaska Independence party. I have a huge problem with Murdoch's NY Post going to the guy's MySpace page and putting it into the paper and onto their website.

And had Palin had an abortion when she was younger - even if she is now anti-choice - I wouldn't think badly of her for having taking that option, or for changing her mind afterwards. Everyone is allowed to have whatever opinion they want, for themselves, and they're certainly allowed to speak about it to other people. It's the legislating of it that I have a problem with.

And believe me, I do know that unexpected pregnancies happen - Cate wasn't planned, although we knew that theoretically I could get pregnant while still nursing. There's lots of women who are pro-choice who would never consider an abortion for herself.

I definitely didn't say that the situation with Bristol was an excuse for the GOP to take away the press coverage of Obama's speech, but Republican operatives definitely said that McCain's decision to announce on Friday was to change the news coverage. If they vetted her, then they would have known about things like her Pledge answer and her AIP membership and her support of Buchanan in 1996 and 2000 - and if McCain chose her knowing all that, then I think his judgment is off the wire unreasonable. If she wasn't vetted and they didn't know those things, which were discovered within 60 or so hours of her being named, then they didn't vet her completely and then I think his judgment is off the wire bad.

And yes, condoms do break and are used incorrectly but many studies, including one by HHS, says that comprehensive sex ed classes result in delays before teens engage in sex, and result in improved condom usage. No, I don't condem Sarah and Todd Palin because Bristol is pregnant, and nowhere did I say I did. I didn't want to get into a discussion of it, and that's exactly why I said "let's not even get into..."

So, what do you think of her participation in the Alaska Indepenence Party? I mean, she did a recorded message for their most recent convention, and their head seems to think that the John Birchers are too liberal. I know a lot of Republicans who are disturbed by the idea of someone who's supported any state's consideration of secession, being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

[blackink.livejournal.com]

Then why bring it up if it's irrelevant? By doing so, you made it relevant to the discussion at hand, which seems to be related to whether the GOP had pulled out such a "controversial" candidate to undermine the response from Obama's speech. You bring it up again in the poll, with 'abstinence-only sex ed' being an option on the ridiculous scale, as you used her daughter's pregnancy as an example of how this system can fail. If it's an irrelevant tangent, then why bring it up in the first place?

A lot of my comment was in response to the previous comments and replies in this entry as well, not solely what appeared in the entry. I should've made that clearer as well.

Personally, if Palin had had an abortion at seventeen or forced her daughter to get one, I would heavily reconsider my vote for McCain. That separation of morals and actions would be a serious issue to talk about in an online forum. What's happened with her daughter is, as you (and Obama) have said, irrelevant to her ability to be the VP. I won't argue the point of abortion, since that would be never-ending, but on the issue of sex education, just because her daughter is pregnant doesn't mean she wasn't educated. On the flip side, those who did receive sex education aren't immune to teenage pregnancy. It comes down to choice and risk. Some people choose to take it, some people don't, and in the end, her daughter chose to take it. Having taken that risk, she did the responsible thing and didn't make her child pay the price for her decision. That's admirable, and those are the values that Palin has clearly taught her children with her own pregnancy.

I've no doubt that the Republicans announced the news of the VP pick to take attention off of Obama, and I was amused and pleased that they'd done so, given the media's tendency to kiss Obama's ass. But what I'm objecting to is the inference that they picked her as a candidate to be controversial because of her daughter's pregnancy. Republicans might be cast as the evil villains in society today by Hollywood and liberal media, but exploiting a seventeen-year-old girl is below any civil political party, and I found it highly offensive that it would even be inadvertently suggested that the party would do that.

I haven't heard anything about the pledge or the secession bit on CNN or other media outlets, but I haven't been listening or reading much today so far, so maybe that's changed. But I have been hearing about her daughter's pregnancy non-stop, so if any move was to distract from the Obama campaign, it would've been that one. Again, offensive. Maybe it's not how you intended it, but it does come off that way quite strongly to me. On the topic of vetting, I know the vetting process appeared to be quite short, but I firmly believe that she was fully vetted. These 'major controversial issues' everyone's talking about in these comments are anything but. They aren't real campaign issues, and getting it all out there in the beginning is exactly what they're doing. I'm not saying she's perfect, not even remotely. In fact, these 'flaws' are what makes her appear much more human. In the end, what some democrats will potentially think themselves above, that will be what endears her to others.

The article you linked to condemned the Palins as parents in relation to her politics, as have others. And again, I have to ask why you even brought it up (though your "let's not even get into it" has the implication of a 'dear lord, aren't they hopeless?' sense of exasperation to it, though again, whether or not that's intentional, I don't know, but it certainly comes off that way, and the way others are reacting in the comments show similar assumptions and verifications) if you think it doesn't matter. Clearly you must at least to some degree, as you linked to two individual articles about it. So I'm a little confused - was it important, or was it irrelevant? And if you didn't want to talk about it, then why bring it up?

[blackink.livejournal.com]

There's absolutely no evidence to say that she does in fact support a state's secession, only a welcoming message talking about competition between political parties (inferring she does not belong to the AIP) and valuing other ideals that the party holds. She also refers to upholding the Alaska Constitution, which only became operative after Alaska became a state and says nothing about secession. As for whether or not she was part of it, it's implied in her recorded message that she isn't: "I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well". She never acknowledges supporting secession - she's simply supporting certain values of a political party in an attempt at being civil and recognizing them as legitimate competition. There's nothing that says two different political parties can't agree on certain issues, and what those certain issues did not include is secession. This so-called video evidence has been completely blown out of proportion, and it's attack tactics all around. Given the laughable crap that the Daily Kos has come up with over the past few days (and quickly took down), it's pretty clear they're just a liberal blog pandering to tabloid rumors and not an unbiased and factual news site.

And as for the pledge bit, it sounded like a gaff to me and not something she necessary believes. Yeah, it sounds annoying taken out of context like that, but was it an off-the-cuff remark where politicians often gaff? Was she laughing when she said it? Was 'Under God' or any part of religion mentioned in regards to the Founding Fathers previously in the interview? Show me the whole interview and I'll give you my full opinion on that. But as it stands, to me personally, it doesn't seem any worse than Obama's refusal to wear a flag pin. Unremarkable and irrelevant to her politics. Everyone screws up - and if that's the best the democrats and media can come up with, then that's fantastic.

Also, the bit about Palin being a "heartbeat away from the Presidency" is such an annoying statement that I've been hearing way too much lately. John McCain might be older than the average candidate, but he's intelligent about his health and watches it closely. He also has some of the best medical help in the world. They're aware that he's at risk of a heart attack, and they're careful about it - but who says that Obama won't keel over tomorrow from a massive heart attack or stroke, or any other number of factors occurs? It's a scare-tactics statement, and a ridiculous one at that. And frankly, if Palin did become President because of McCain's untimely demise, then that wouldn't be half as bad as certain others gaining the presidency. I don't think she'd make a bad President at all.

[heidi8.livejournal.com]

OK, this is weird, because I wrote an extensive reply to this and it seems to have been Eaten By LJ.So I will rewrite it (albeit with fewer links than it originally had - if you want more links for #2 especially, let me know).

1. The pledge bit was something she wrote in response to the Eagle Forum's questionaire back in the 2006 gubernatorial race.

2. The "heartbeat away from the presidency" is an aphorism that's been around at least since Reagan was shot - when I replied yesterday I linked to articles where it was mentioned in connection with Quayle, Gore, Cheney and Bush #1, as well as Biden. It has nothing to do with McCain's heart precisely - people have said it about every VP candidate in the last 20+ years. The one window I still had open was W's eulogy for Reagan. Just FYI.

3. Her husband was a member of the AIP, and she has attended their events. What would you think if Obama, let's say as a teenager, had attended a single meeting of a group that wanted a vote on the secession of Hawaii? Would you brush it off as easily as you're brushing off the Palins' participation in AIP activities? What do you think Lincoln would say about it?

4. DO you really think that her participation in Stevens' 527 - when McCain has spoken out against 527's - is not a campaign or governance issue? Do you really think that her acceptance of - and lobbying for - earmarks that are on McCain's list of earmarks that he considered problematic is not a campaign issue?

What is a campaign issue for you?