Well, it is several rungs up the ladder from their normal cesspool. Still insane, though
As detailed here and here, questions are arising as to whether McCain’s candidate for vice-president was a member of or was in any way associated with the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP). The AIP is a political party whose aim, among other things, is to receive a vote on the secession of Alaska from the United States of America. (snip)
Was McCain’s VP pick truly a “member of the AIP,” as the video claims? Â It could simply be a fringe organization trying to take credit for an electoral success. Â But if it isn’t, and McCain’s VP pick was ever a member of such a radical political party, then that is something that voters deserve to know.
“You know, we’re just wondering.”
Nutbags.
I’ve seen the videos these stories refer to. The Vice-Chair of the AIP says that Sarah Palin was a member of the party before she became mayor of Wasilla. I’ve also seen the video of her address to the AIP party convention in March 2008 where she refers to the AIP as an important part of Alaska state politics.
Taking into account those two videos, why does wanting to know whether Palin actually ever was a member of the AIP make someone a “Nutbag”? If you were vetting her for the job of VP and were aware of these two videos, wouldn’t YOU check out whether she’d ever been a member of the AIP?
Let’s see: we have been told we cannot ask about Obama’s long history with people like jeremiah Right, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc and so on, despite there being decades of history. We ask for proof of Obama’s policies and plans. We are told no on all accounts.
Yet, some minor little assertion because a politician went to a meeting is grounds for an investigation and fro her having to prove her innocence. Too funny.
If you’re going to call people “nutjobs,” you’ll have to do a LOT better than that! I haven’t seen such a great example of lamely trying to change the subject and factual distortion for quite a while.
First, bringing up Wright, Ayres, Rezko, etc., is an irrelevant distraction and a lame attempt to change the subject. What makes you think I have to defend Obama? For all you could tell from my previous post, I could simply be a Republican who is just very disappointed that Senator McCain obviously didn’t check out Sarah Palin before impulsively offering her the VP slot. The point is, Obama’s relationships with Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Tony Rezko have NOTHING TO DO with whether Sarah Palin was a member of the AIP and whether that is worthy of investigation, i.e., whether it’s a fact that the electorate should know before deciding whether Sarah Palin should be elected VP. It certainly has nothing to do with whether the people who have raised the question of Palin’s relationship with the AIP are “nutjobs.” I suppose you’ll call ABC News a bunch of “nutjobs” too, now that they’ve confirmed the story, citing an interview with the woman who was Secretary of the AIP in the 1990s.
Second, how much to make of this story depends upon getting all the facts. I think that Palin should at least be asked about it; you apparently don’t. Why? Scared of what the answer might be? I notice you never did answer my question: if you were tasked with vetting Palin for the McCain campaign and you were shown the two videos I mentioned, would YOU consider the topic one you should inquire into? If not, why not? You assert that she simply “went to a meeting.” Even the reports that have come out at this early stage show that she did more than that — she’s been described by the former Secretary to the AIP as a “member” of the party and the “meeting” she went to was the AIP’s state convention. Moreover, just a few months ago, she delivered a complimentary video address to this secessionist party in which she described it as an important part of Alaska’s political life. Ask yourself this: if Obama or Biden had delivered a friendly address to a group advocating a state’s secession from the USA, would you say it wasn’t worthy of inquiry? I kinda doubt it. The point is, there’s enough here to warrant further inquiry and the electorate deserves a full and complete picture of Palin’s dealings and relationship with the AIP.
Third, you assume I object to inquiry about Obama and Wright, Ayres, and Rezko. I don’t. I thought it was perfectly appropriate to ask Obama (as Republicans, the media, and a lot of TRUE nutjobs did) about his relationships with Wright, Ayres, and Rezko. Has ANYBODY said you CAN’T ASK Obama about them? Not that I’ve noticed. Obama’s given his answers and everybody and his brother has weighed in on those topics; we’re all free to take this information into account in deciding for whom to vote, assigning whatever weight we think appropriate. Why shouldn’t we have the same with respect to Palin’s relationship with the AIP? You haven’t answered that question.
Finally, you say “[w]e ask for proof of Obama’s policies and plans. We are told no on all accounts.” A candidate for office can never supply enough detail on plans and policies to satisfy everyone. That includes both Barack Obama and John McCain. However, it’s simply false to say that Obama refuses to state his “policies and plans.” Merely taking a look at the Obama campaign’s web site puts the lie to your statement. He has policy statements on dozens of topics. You may not like or agree with them and you might assert that they are insufficiently detailed, but you’re flatly wrong when you say Obama says “no” to all inquiries concerning his plans and policies.
I say again, before you start calling people “nutjobs” for reporting stories about a political candidate, you should have at least SOME basis for you opinion. Your calling those who brought up Palin’s connection with the AIP “nutjobs” and then refusing to engage effectively on the subject after I called you out on it says a whole lot more about you than it does about the targets of your tantrum.
[…] Newest Nutroots Palin Conspiracy: Alaska Independence Party […]