Alaska

Beware the Barracuda

by Bill O'Connell on July 4, 2009

Share and Recommend:

If anyone thinks that Sarah Palin is beaten and is about to become a footnote in history, I would say to them, “don’t bet the rent on it.” In her address where she announced she was stepping down, she used a basketball analogy. After all, it was on the basketball court where she got the name “Sarah Barracuda.” She said what a good point guard does when facing a full court press is protect the ball, keep her head up with her eyes on the basket and she passes off at the right opportunity. What she didn’t say was what happens next. If anyone who watched Michael Jordan play knows, after passing off they don’t go sit on the bench. They maneuver into position to make the big play and if you take your eye off of them, they’ll kill you every time.

The Full Court Press

In the last year Sarah Palin has been hit with eighteen ethics complaints. Her record so far in these complaints is 15-0, with three still pending. The results of these complaints have been a lot of needless time and money spent by state employees investigating these complaints and clearing her name every time. The concern she expressed yesterday is that these are a distraction, a waste of state time and money robbing the people of Alaska of the limited government they deserve and it is also costing her family a fortune to defend. As you can see below, one of the ethics complaints is that she is raising money to pay her legal fees. So the full court press is throw every frivolous ethics complaint you can at her, complain if she tries to raise money to defend herself, bankrupt her if you can, and later you can complain that she spent too much time on these issues rather than on state business. Here is a summary of the complaints:

Troopergate — this one is the well known case where a state employee was fired for not doing his job. It also involved her sister’s ex-husband. The firing was deemed lawful.
Palin was accused of helping someone get a job in state government. I’m shocked, shocked that someone in politics actually helped someone get a job. Complaint dismissed by state personnel board.
Palin was accused of taking a public position on a mining ballot initiative days before the vote. Wow, she actually took a position. How refreshing for a politician. Any issue about it taking place within days of a vote is our misguided “campaign finance reforms” that curtail our First Amendment rights in the name of better government. Complaint rejected by the Alaska Public Public Offices Commission.
Palin filed “self disclosure” to get the Troopergate issue resolved once and for all.
Complaint filed by employee union over the firing of Mike Wooton, the trooper in Troopergate. Complaint dismissed.
Monagan, the individual fired in the Troopergate ethics complaint against Palin asked for a hearing to clear his name. The panel said there was no legal basis or jurisdiction for such a hearing.
Complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission about the $150,000 the Republican Party spent for her wardrobe. FEC said the expenditure was not banned.
Palin charged with abuse of power for charging the state when her children traveled with her. The personnel board found no wrongdoing. Palin agreed to pay $10,000 to the state to cover the costs.
Palin was accused of conducting an interview in the Governor’s office about the Vice Presidential campaign. Complaint dismissed by the state personnel board. I guess she should have conducted the interview outside. Let’s see, November in Alaska outside, perfect!
Palin accused of violating ethics law for campaigning for Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss. Dismissed by state personnel board.
Complaint that Palin misused funds of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute to promote her political ambitions by using advertisements featuring her. Her crime was that she allowed the board to use her image and did so before she was picked by John McCain. Complaint dismissed after a personnel board investigation.
Complaint alleging interference in job hiring by an individual whose identity could never be verified. The name used was that of a character in a British soap opera. Palin’s attorney said that no one in the state of Alaska could be found with that name and the filer refused to use a real name so the case was dropped.
This and 14 allege that two employees on Palin’s staff worked on state time to help Palin before and after her Vice Presidential campaign. This complaint is still pending.
Same as 13 covering the other employee. Pending.
Complaint Palin improperly used state property, time and equipment for partisan political purposes, including posting on the Governor’s web site that she was running for Vice President. Dismissed as lacking merit by the state personnel board.
Palin accused of a conflict of interest because she wore clothing with an “Arctic Cat” logo on it because Arctic Cat sponsored her husband’s team. Dismissed.
Complaint alleged that Palin’s work with a PAC violated ethics laws by misusing her position and accepting outside employment. Dismissed as lacking merit by the state personnel board.
Complaint alleging Palin is misusing the governor’s office for personal gain by accepting money from the Alaska Fund Trust. The fund was established by supporters to help Palin defray her $500,000 in legal bills run up by fighting all these ethics claims she keeps winning. Brilliant strategy. Hit her with baseless ethics claims and then fight her ability to pay her bills. This is still pending.

Add to this the personal attacks by the likes of David Letterman, the recent Vanity Fair article and her enemies standing at the ready to file ethics complaints every time she tries to defend herself, let’s her opponents set the agenda. If allowed unchecked for the next three years, no one could recover from that. On top of that is her personal focus to do what is best for her state. She does not want to waste state money and time on dealing with ethics complaints rather than governing, but these complaints have to be dealt with and they seem to be coming at a rate of about one every three weeks. She defeats everyone of them but it is a drain.

An Unconventional Move

The pundits are saying this is the end of her career. But let’s look at this.

By stepping down, the ethics complaints will stop.
The people of Alaska can have a government that is not wasting time on these issues.
Her legal bills will stop climbing
She can probably make $50,000 to $100,000 per speech on the speaking circuit and quickly pay off her legal bills
She can hit the campaign trail for Congressional and Senate candidates in 2010. She is still very popular and a very successful fund raiser. This will pile up political IOUs for 2012
She can speak out forcefully against the reckless policies of the Obama administration, raising her profile without complaint (ethics and otherwise) that she is neglecting her state duties.
She can work on burnishing her foreign policy credentials. Remember she was only on the campaign trail for about 60+ days, trying to get in sync with John McCain’s positions while being mishandled by his staff. Now she can stake out her own positions, carefully and thoughtfully

Is this a risky move? Sure. But to continue the basketball analogy, how conventional was Michael Jordan’s style of play? He did things that no one ever saw coming.

The 2012 Campaign

Some pundits are saying that Mitt Romney probably can’t stop pinching himself with his new found good fortune. Is that premature? After all, he and Sarah Palin are basically in the same position. They are both former governors. Yes, it can be said that Romney finished his term in office while Palin is stepping down. However, Romney as governor of liberal Massachusetts has some things on his resume that he would probably like to live down. Palin accomplished a lot in a short time in office without the same albatrosses. She is doing what she thinks is right for herself and for Alaska, not following some tired political playbook. Her approval/disapproval rating among Republicans is 73/17 compared to Romney’s 57/18.

Brand New Ballgame

Not being in office allows her to set the agenda rather than having to react to other people’s agendas. She doesn’t have to hold back. Consider how Dick Cheney came out forcefully so speak against Obama’s policies when others in the Republican party were trying to find their voice. His poll numbers rose dramatically.

Sarah Palin can speak with conservative principles that win elections. When Republicans stick to their conservative roots they win. When they try to be moderate they lose. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but I can see Palin having just passed off the ball driving to the basket while her opponents watch the ball, and soar into the air for the ally oop and the score.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Is the Groundswell Starting?

by Bill O'Connell on February 20, 2009

Share and Recommend:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people — Amendment X, United States Constitution

“I’m Mad as Hell and I’m Not Going To Take It Any More”

That quote from the movie “Network” popped into my head as I read about a legislator in Oklahoma, calling for legislative support for the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. It passed the state assembly unanimously. So what does this mean? The sponsor of the bill, State Senator Randy Brogdan, explains:

The “federal government has been putting the screws on (the states) a little tighter and tighter each year” along with unfunded mandates of varying sorts.

And each time this happens, Brogdon explained, “We lose a little bit of our freedom and liberty.”

The federal government has been growing enormously and taking on more and more things that used to be handled locally, such as education, and welfare. Other programs have not changed as the economy has, for example, as the percentage of the population that farms has decreased dramatically has the Department of Agriculture shrunk accordingly?

You Must Obey!

The way the federal government works around this is by saying, okay, you don’t have to do what we tell you, but you will get no federal funding if you don’t. It seems like a Catch-22, no? Since the 16th Amendment, which authorized the income tax, the federal government can decide how much to tax incomes and there is little that the states can do about it. They take money from your pocket under threat of imprisonment, and will give it back to you only if you comply with their rules.

How Do We Fix This One?

It may require a constitutional amendment to fix as the 16th Amendment says:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. — 16th Amendment to the Constitution

I’ll leave the legal mechanics to those better qualified, but I would propose the following. That the federal budget shall include a breakdown of projected revenues derived from income taxes, broken down by source: individual, corporate, etc. A state should then be allowed to refuse mandates and programs from, say, the Department of Education, and withhold from the IRS that proportion of tax dollars destined for the Department of Education from that state.

Certain departments should be deemed mandatory, such as Defense, State, Treasure, to name a few as these departments serve all citizens.

The legislation under consideration in Oklahoma will have little effect if the federal government can suck up as much money as it wants to from the states, via their citizens and then just keep the money if the states refuse to participate in the programs. How do you determine which programs should be subject to the states discretion? No money should flow from a state, to Washington, and then back to the state. That is just plain stupid and wasteful, or a distribution of wealth, none of which is a government function. Paying for roads and infrastructure that does not cross state lines should be funded locally. It is ridiculous that the federal government pays 90% of the cost of a highway that lies entirely within a city. Look at the scandalous “Big Dig” in Boston. Billions of dollars spent and parts of it are falling down. Why should any of this be paid for by the people of Kansas, Oklahoma, Alaska, New York, Florida, et al.?

But the real answer is following the 10th Amendment. It clearly states that the role of the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution. If it’s not in the Constitution then that responsibility is left to the states or the people. Show me where in the Constitution it says that the federal government is responsible for education. It’s not in there and that department should be shut down tomorrow.

It’s Time to Rein the Monster In

The anger in the country is growing. Those who acted responsibly are being told they have to bail out the irresponsible. They are being told by “Buck a Day Biden” that it is their patriotic duty to pay higher taxes to help out. Meanwhile half a dozen Obama appointees haven’t paid the taxes they owe, let alone paying more. I give Biden the “Buck a Day Biden” moniker because that is how much this millionaire gives to charity. He doesn’t want to spend his own money on charity, he wants the government to take your money to fund government programs to do that.

If you don’t think the anger is growing take a look at this. Rick Santelli

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

Piling on Palin

by Bill O'Connell on November 6, 2008

Share and Recommend:

You have to wonder. Now that the election is over you would think that the focus would be on the president-elect and his transition. That is newsworthy and is being covered, but the continuing focus on Sarah Palin is surprising.

Finishing Her Off?

Could it be that the left is so fearful of Sarah Palin and her ability to energize crowds that they feel they must finish her off, so she does not come back stronger and more popular? Could it be that they can’t imagine facing her with four more years of experience under her belt?

Do the Attacks Pass the Smell Test?

A Fox news story said that the McCain campaign became increasingly disenchanted with Palin toward the end of the campaign. It said that her lack of knowledge of the most basic facts about civics and geography were alarming. This raises some interesting points:

In vetting Sarah Palin, no matter how quickly or superficially it was done, how could they possibly miss issues so allegedly glaring?
The opposition, which included the main stream media, descended on Alaska from north to south to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. Bill O’Reilly reported that the National Enquirer went up there checkbook in hand, to get any good story they could. What did they come up with? Nothing. The only thing that came close to a story was Troopergate. Try as they might to make it a big story and even an October surprise, it flopped. She was later completely exonerated by the proper investigative authority in Alaska (not the Democrats in the legislature). Interestingly, the vindication didn’t make much of a news splash even though the findings were released before the election.
Her approval ratings as governor were the highest in the nation. Could a complete dunderhead be so widely approved of?

Just How Thin Was Her Experience?

Ironically, in an article that was used to sandbag Sarah Palin in a CNN interview, Byron York wrote in National Review (“Sarah Palin, Governor”):

… a look at Palin’s 20 months in power, along with interviews with people who worked with her, shows her to be a serious executive, a governor who picked important things to do and got them done — and who didn’t just stumble into an 80 percent job-approval rating.

She took on her own party when she saw ethics problems. How many Democrats can say that? The typical Democratic response to scandal is circle the wagons, stonewall, and counter attack. Just think Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds, Tim Mahoney, the Keating Five, et al.

She renegotiated a pipeline project with major oil companies that was originally negotiated by her predecessor on terms unfavorable to Alaska. She overhauled the state ethics laws, working with both Democrats and Republicans in the Alaska legislature. She also vetoed spending on things that she determined were not a state priority, for such things as “dealing with killer shrubs and Zamboni blades.”

Byron York distilled how she approached governing with three points:

She hires well. “There was a pretty good team of people assembled right away to come in and start with her big-picture principles and develop a process and legislation to carry that out,” says Joe Balash, the governor’s oil and gas advisor, “I would say that her management style is to give her staff, her cabinet, a pretty long leash, but with very high expectations — and she’s not afraid to tell you that you didn’t get it right.”
She is involved in details in big things but not on everything. In other words, she doesn’t get lost in the weeds. She keeps focus on the the important things.
She is dead set on fulfilling campaign promises. Imagine that! A politician who actually cares about what they say on the campaign trail and says what they mean and means what they say.

Sarah Barracuda

Sarah has shed the muzzle of the second fiddle in a presidential race. She no longer has to pull her punches so as not to conflict with the top of the ticket. She is back to being governor and the chief executive of Alaska. So she can now set the record straight and she should do so enthusiastically. She should take advantage of media outlets that are fair and balanced, rather than lying in wait for her. She should come out swinging and really let the left know that if they were frightened of her before, they have awakened a sleeping giant.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (1)

The Palin Puzzle

by Bill O'Connell on October 14, 2008

Share and Recommend:

After reading Christopher Buckley’s piece on why he is now an Obama man, I had to read Kathleen Parker’s piece on Sarah Palin, which he referred to. It has been a whirlwind the past five or six weeks since Sarah Palin was named to the ticket and from that first moment the fusillade from the mainstream media began.

It’s hard to tell where lies the true Sarah Palin. Throw in Tina Fey’s extraordinarily dead on caricature (Palin Watches Tina Fey) and you have to work double time to see if you are watching a comedy sketch or an interview. The interviews were clearly not her best moment, and I can’t say if the McCain camp, by sequestering her and force feeding her briefing material about McCain’s positions turned Palin into pâté.

However, I can’t get past the fact that as Alaskan governor she has a stratospheric approval rating of 60+% and in 2007 it was in the 90s. Compare this to the current Democratic Congress whose approval rating has been in the teens to low 20s, during the same time frame. Are the people of Alaska uniformly obtuse?

She also took on corruption in her own party and won. For a relatively new politician that is courageous to say the least, even if she wasn’t successful, but she was. What tough stands has Obama taken against his party? Heard any criticisms of Barney Frank or Christopher Dodd from Senator Obama lately?

So Sarah Palin may not be able to dodge a question as smoothly as Barack Obama, or maybe she was just trying to square her personal opinion with what was most in tune with the McCain campaign, and was playing defense rather than offense, while the cameras rolled.

Just before the Vice Presidential debate, McCain’s two top aides took over prepping Palin and the cry from the conservative base was to just let Sarah be Sarah, and when they did she seemed to do extraordinarily well in the debate.

Did the interviews go badly? Yes. Now was that because she was out of her league, or because she was trying to serve too many masters and not just be herself? In this campaign McCain seems to be overly cautious while Palin seems eager to bring it on. Let her.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Next Entries →

Alaska

Beware the Barracuda

Piling on Palin

The Palin Puzzle

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll