Thoughts on Texas elections 2010

In this home stretch of the never-ending search for the 44th president of the United States, perhaps it is time to project ahead to 2010 in the state of Texas when all sorts of dominoes might fall for office holders.
Leading the pack will be the drive for the (torched) Governor’s Mansion in Austin and there isn’t a political operative who doesn’t think that the Lone Star State’s senior U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison will toss her hat/hairband into the ring for governor. She isn’t being coy or anything in denying any rumor to that effect.
IF KBH runs for Gov, I predict the current occupant, “Helmethair” Rick Perry will, in turn, seek her Senate seat. After all, it actually makes sense for him; running against her (perhaps the most popular Republican in Texas) is possible career suicide. If she beats him in the primary, his political days COULD be over. After all, being governor means you don’t take a step backwards in politics; the only way is upward and that means Washington, D.C. on a bigger stage than the House of Representatives.
Besides, the GOP does not want a bloodbath at the top of its ticket. It can plainly see what will happen come Tuesday to the national party – a national implosion leaving the Republican brand less than desirable in almost every part of the U.S. – EXCEPT for Texas.
So what of the others seeking to move UP the food chain?
The biggest loser could be Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst … with nowhere to go. He cannot beat KBH for any office she wants and perhaps he cannot defeat Helmethair in an 1-on-1 battle in the primary. Of course, no one counted on him to defeat Democrat John Sharp to become the state’s senatorial leader.
Look for Land Commish Jerry “Six Guns A-blazin’” Patterson to run for Lt. Governor if Dewhurst vacates (Paterson is a former state senator and a pro-gun wacko) and others scrambling to see how those chips fall prior to the filing date next year – which is a little than ONE year away (unbelievable).
And what about them Dems? Houston Mayor Bill White, in his final term and unquestionable the state’s BEST mayor, can pick and choose where he wants to go – Governor? Senate? Lt. Governor?
But can he inspire and lead others to follow and file? And it needs to be people of substance and quality.
I’d love to see State Sen. Judith Zaffirini of Laredo move into statewide office. But the question pops up again – just where is her best fit?
Sadly for Democrats, the list of quality names is short. Perhaps it will increase based on the results from Nov. 4, where turnout for Democrats should be higher than at anytime in the last 12 years.
Politics these days permits NO time for a breather or respite – it has become 24/7 in terms of campaigning and the public gets saturated and badgered sooner than anyone knows … or appreciates.
Still, such is the new world order to get elected – a constant spinning wheel that must be fed and kept in perpetual motion.

Rah! Rah! Sis-boom-bah! Hit that Jew and fight!

Lovely; just lovely!
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/midwest/view/2008_10_23_Suburban_St__Louis_students_face_punishment_for_%E2%80%98Hit_a_Jew_Day_/srvc=home&position=recent
Anything for school spirit, right? Did those spirit ribbons have sawstiskas on them?
What in the fuck are we teaching our youth these days?!?!?!
And, as always, all this shit starts in the ...
HOME!

Hard times for major sports

If you are one of those people who thinks baseball is washed up and other sports, such as NASCAR and the NBA are taking its place, please read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/22/AR2008102203343.html?hpid=topnews

The rough economic times are about to take their toll on the new so-called "American" sports. Sponsorships are going bye-bye by the millions ... of dollars. Fans will soon follow because, as in the case of NASCAR, there is no way to reduce the cost without the quality of the sport suffering. And fans won't want to see slower cars that DON'T wreck.
In reflection, baseball is looking just fine - in all its glorious deliberate play, pace and beauty.

"My mommy is number one, too!"

Out of the mouth (or hands) of babes????
Ain't Piper Palin just the sweetest little white trash girl you've ever met? Wonder who taught her THAT?
That's what you get for eating all that moose ...

Are these my parting gifts for participating?

Now we also see how much of a clothes whore Sarah Palin has become.
$150,000 in outfits since Sept. 1, raising the profits for Neiman-Marcus here in Dallas to say the least.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/10/httpwwwpoliticocomnewsstories1.html
And now almost $9,000 for a professional makeup artist for Princess Sarah. WOW! You mean that MILF look, driving all those horny neo-cons crazy in the zipper, is AUGMENTED? It's NOT her natural foxiness???????? She needs help???????? And more than $13,000 for the entire campaing??????
Isn't this worse than any haircut Clinton or John Edwards might have received?
And will she give the outfits BACK since keeping them come Nov. 5 will be against the law????
The hole hasn't been dug deep enough to hide this woman now! I guess that kind of expenditure represents HER "real America."
It would be laughable if it weren't SO sad.

Oh Sarah, what job are YOU running for?

Dedicated to Frances K.
Here is what should be a fundamental rule for politics: you MUST know exactly the description of the job you seek!
For poor Sarah Palin, alas, she does NOT!
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/22/sot.palin.vp.role.kusa
And this isn't an isolated case. She didn't know during her debate with Joe Biden (uh, he DID!), on CNBC and during the campaign trial. Simply put, she is CLUELESS about the job she thinks she should have!
"They’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes ..."
Sorry, wrong Jeopardy answer! Any student above third grade knows THAT! It's in the freaking ... Constitution - plain as day! But I guess that information never floated UP to Alaska, huh?
This is SOOOOOO beyond the Peter Principle, it makes you want to hurl!

Limbaugh about Powell: Finally the real racist shines through

Any normal thinking person who watched Gen. Colin Powell's comments Sunday on NBC's "Meeet the Press," heard - distinctly - that the man said his "endorsement" of Barack Obama for President was NOT due to race but character - mostly the lack of character of the Republican Party.
Powell, one of THE most distinguished and revered retired military men in this nation, said if race was THE issue, his endorsement would have come MUCH earlier.
So here we have uber-bigot, uber idiot Rush Limbaugh echoing the nasty race-baiting attack on Powell that began Sunday night by the most putrid of the right-wing extremists on the radio.
This is CNN's Political Ticker report from today (Oct. 20):

Conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh Monday strongly defended his recent remark that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama largely because of race, and lashed out at members of the media and Democrats for appearing to take issue with his comment.
"So what if it's race?" Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Why is it so hard to admit that it's race…What's so problematic about admitting it?"
Limbaugh's original comments came in an email to Politico reporter Jonathan Martin Sunday, when the talk-radio host took issue with Powell's contention that his endorsement of the Illinois senator did not have anything to do with the color of his skin.
"Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race," Limbaugh wrote in the e-mail. "OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with."
The comments immediately caused a stir on several Democratic blogs and an Obama campaign spokeswoman called them "disgusting." They were also heavily reported on several news programs Sunday night and Monday morning. But Limbaugh made clear Monday he is not backing down from them.
"I thought it should be about race," he said. "I thought you liberals thought this was a historic candidacy because finally we are going to elect a black guy … why hide behind this, why act like it's not about race?"
"This was all about Powell and race, nothing about the nation and its welfare," Limbaugh added. The talk radio host also criticized members of the media for not addressing his claim that Powell likely hasn't endorsed white candidates who, according to Limbaugh, have similar political leanings and experience as Obama.
"Just so you know, I haven't come up with any," he said. "I worked diligently on this on the airplane on the trip home from Green Bay yesterday. I can't find any of these inexperienced white liberals that Powell has endorsed."
In announcing his endorsement of Obama, Powell said his decision was not based solely on race, but added "I can't deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president."
"Should that happen, all Americans should be proud — not just African-Americans, but all Americans — that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen," Powell said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday. "It will also not only electrify our country, I think it'll electrify the world."

I wonder who Donovan McNabb is endorsing, Rush...

This good dog goes to Heaven: 1990-2008

When a life comes to an end, be it human or animal, it ought to be done in peace – without pain and suffering – after the longest journey possible. For a dog, “the big sleep” should come at the end of a wonderful dream – running free through a long field, chasing squirrels, birds or cats.
It really shouldn’t be done by appointment; somehow it’s not … natural.
Blarney was a faithful, loving companion to my wife for more than 18 years, and to me for the last eight. However, at 18 ½ years old (incredibly old for a Jack Russell terrier), the time has come to say goodbye. It was no longer fair to keep him heavily medicated against pain and the ravages of age, simply to see him struggle so much to execute his rudimentary functions.
So on a Monday, we packed his bags, went to the vet’s office and sent him quietly to Heaven.
Blarney got his name because he was born on St. Patrick’s Day and was a rascally livewire during his life. While I only knew him in his September years, my wife’s tales of his antics were legendary – of the terrier trait of digging, chasing and “burying” bones and toys in the house. They would be discovered later between couch pillows and in corners of closets.
When she had to make frequent excursions to San Antonio, to visit her late parents during times of illness, Blarney was her sole companion, curled up in a ball on the floorboard of the car. He was not the world’s greatest passenger, as evident afterwards by mounds of shed hair from his coat. Yet there he was and there he listened as she played her music, National Public Radio or news channels.
In later years, the car mean going to the veterinarian, among reason to shed, but the final trips produced no such panic. It was as it he was signaling his surrender.
Dogs are not human being and do not have the same constitutional, inalienable rights as homo sapiens. But they ARE one of God’s nicer creatures and deserve the proper love and respect as such.
Like any animal, upon entrance to one’s home, they should be objects of only love and proper treatment; never subject to one iota of abuse or be trained in any form of abusive behavior. Tragically, some canine breeds have been engineered by cruel humans to exhibit anti-social behaviors ... and act upon those criminal impulses. As is the case with hatred and bigotry among people, it is instilled at the home during development. Puppies, like babies, are always innocent until subject to their environment.
And now there exists an eerie silence in our home, knowing the sound normally associated with our friend is forever extinguished. In the coming days, we will have to collect the remnants of his life (food/water bowls, beds, toys). Tears might spontaneously flow when we gaze at the place she used to sleep or play and no words will be needed as explanation.
In Judaism, there is a mourning period, known as shiva, where the family “sits” for 30 days to properly honor and mourn the deceased. Candles are lit and prayers (the kaddish) recited. Since Blarney was tagged with an Irish name, perhaps a wake during next year’s North Texas Irish Festival would be more appropriate.
Friends can hoist their Guinnesses to Heaven and remember a nice, old dog that brought unconditional love and joy to one home for a long, long time.
Now if I can only find where he buried my slippers …

From the Book of Hitchens

Today's passage comes from the Book of Hitchens (as in Christopher Hitchens, one of the blogosphere's most acerbic writers):
"Last week's so-called town-hall event showed Sen. John McCain to be someone suffering from an increasingly obvious and embarrassing deficit, both cognitive and physical. And the only public events that have so far featured his absurd choice of running mate have shown her to be a deceiving and unscrupulous woman utterly unversed in any of the needful political discourses but easily trained to utter preposterous lies and to appeal to the basest element of her audience. McCain occasionally remembers to stress matters like honor and to disown innuendoes and slanders, but this only makes him look both more senile and more cynical, since it cannot (can it?) be other than his wish and design that he has engaged a deputy who does the innuendoes and slanders for him . . .
"The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: 'What does he take me for?' Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her -- her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations -- were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses.
"It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them."
You gotta love it!

Quoting from a REAL conservative

From today's Washington Post, E.J. Dionne's column, quoting from I believe to be a major hero of true conservatives:

"When Christopher Buckley, a novelist and former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush, announced last week that he would vote for Obama (his first vote ever for a Democrat), he referred to words once spoken to him by his late father. 'You know,' the conservative hero William F. Buckley Jr. said, 'I've spent my entire lifetime separating the right from the kooks.'"

Am I right?

Separation of church and noise

As the 2008 campaigns limps into the final days, more preachers, ministers and other people of various religious persuasions are opening their mouths on matters FAR from the word of God - their alleged job. Many conservative preachers, part of a movement called, the Alliance Defense Fund (sounds like some old 1960s radical groups that William Ayers might like to have had coffee with), have been overtly partisan in their sermons and homilys about telling/instructing/brow-beating parishoners who specifically to vote for and who NOT to vote for.
Hiding behind the red herring of "freedom of speech," they are challenging the traditional belief that politics has no place in a house of God and the pulpit should not be used for political attacks of one kind or another.
Opponents of such practices want the IRS to look into the tax-exempt status of these churches since it is illegal for corporations or non-profits to engage in political activities. These preachers want it both ways and that ain't right.
If they want to exercise their "freedom of speech" from the pulpit, go right ahead. Speak your mind and say your piece - attack all the Democrats you want and kiss all the Republican as you can find.
But give up that tax-exempt status. Pay your fair share to the government you keep attacking but hide behind its tax shelters, forcing the membership to pay more of the freight because you won't.
In the Bible, Matthew 22:21 states, "They say unto him, Caesar's. The saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
Politics belong to Caesar, not God; it has been created by mankind. If they want to dabble, pay the piper to hear or sing the tune.

Meet the future high school dropout son-in-law

This is almost TOO good to believe. The governor's daughter, knocked UP at 17 because she and her boyfriend cannot practice simple safe sex educationnal practices, is going to marry this white igloo-trash kid.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_el_pr/palin_wasilla_heartthrob
And he isn't going to marry the girl NOW, but is going to WAIT until next summer. Whatever happened to chivalry and "doing the right thing NOW?"
Or ... is there an escape clause in his mind where he can bolt if it isn't what it was all cracked up to be in the first place?
Sorry, but when you parade around your Down Syndrome child as a stage prop during rallies, and preach your "holier than Thou" rhetoric on the campaign trail, you have your "family" values examined under a microscope.

Caught with her hands in the abuse of power cookie jar

Sarah, Sarah, Sarah …
I don’t want to say people told you so, but … people told you so!
And now, there’s a public report released by a bi-partisan legislative commission (consisting of 10 of your fellow Republicans and just 4 Democrats) which states, “Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: To get Trooper Michael Wooten fired.”
And this, “the disciplinary investigation was closed and could not be reopened. Yet she allowed the pressure from her husband, to try to get Trooper Wooten fired, to continue unabated over a several month-period of time.”
And THIS, “She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act.”
The “he” in this reference is the First Dude, the Todd-ster, who apparently was his wife’s Luca Brazzi for this situation. I doubt anyone in any level of state government was SO involved without any check of his “unofficial” activities in the nation.
As for the Palins’ claim of fear of reprisal by Wooten (who is not going to be named saint by anyone in this lifetime, the report states, “ Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins’ real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons.”
For all of those who want to read the actual 263-page report yourselves, here’s the link:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/investigative/documents/palin-101008.pdf?hpid=topnews

The report does state Palin had the power and right to simply discharge Walt Monegan as Public Safety Commissioner for whatever reason, but … NOOOOOOO … by golly, she had to drag her family into it … and use HER OFFICE illegally and inappropriately to seek revenge upon her former brother-in-law.
Is that “being a maverick?” Is that political “reform?” Is that … (wait for it) being like “a Chicago politician????”
We, in Yiddish, have a word for being such a person:
SCHMUCK!
And this country has elected enough of them over the last eight years.

When ... WHEN will politicians EVER learn RULE NO. 1?

That the COVERUP is worse than the alleged crime?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101008dnpoltroopergate.71a177.html
If this report exonerates Gov. Sarah Palin, WHY in the holy hell would is be kept SECRET?
For now?
I ask, until when?
Nov. 5?????????
Bill Ayres, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright - these people are NOT runing for the second-highest elective office in the United States.
SHE IS! And she has other characters - from her past and present (namely Joe Vogler, her OWN pastor problem and ... HER HUSBAND) to answer for.
And let's not get started on John McCain and HIS unsavory connections duirng his LOOOOOONG political career.
Because ... anyone look at their investments lately? Anyone try to make a major purchase lately on credit? THAT (my friends) is "Where the Action is" (anyone remember THAT 1960's Dick Clark Show?).

The newly printed American dollar

On the button ...

Exposing the REAL John McCain

If any of you out there, who haven't decided on which candidate to support on Nov. 4 (if you are undecided STILL you'd be best NOT to vote out of sheer ignorance), or are thinking about voting for John McCain, you NEED to read this article IMMEDIATELY!

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

John Dickinson, the son of legendary NBC correspondent Nancy Dickinson and former writer for TIME and Slate.com, peels the onion that IS McCain and reveals some truths not being exposed by ANY media.
What he discovers is frightening - the horrid academic record, skating along on the family ties, the womanizing, the callous regard for classmates and shipmates, the constant cover-ups and the naked ambition that had led to the moment in time.
Any clear thinking person who would argue about moral fiber and standards, and places McCain in that column, should have a major epiphany after digesting all this fact-based information.
Read it! I dare ya.

Lower the voting age to 17

Inspiration for these columns often has many fathers – something you read, something you see, something you hear. I was watching an episode of David E. Kelley’s television dramedy, “Boston Legal,” and one of the central legal issues concerned a guest character on trial for violation of election laws – she had voted despite not being of legal age (the young lady was 17 and talked like a Harvard law graduate).
The central question asked, “Why can’t 17-year-olds be allowed to vote?” made me think (extensively between Viagra commercials and trailers for the upcoming Leonardo DiCaprio movie).
Why CAN’T 17-year-olds be allowed to vote? Other than it’s not legal at this time …
Lord help me, but I could NOT think of one substantial, cognitive reason against such a proposition. In an age where voter participation in this country has steadily decline like most folks’ 401k plans, an infusion of energy into the process would probably be a good thing.
In the show, the prosecution used the tried-and-true (but tired) argument, “They’re just kids!” However, in SO many ways, 17-year-olds are as adult as any of us – they get start families, decide on their own educational future, earn livings and make their own decisions. Choosing who will lead them ought to be among those.
As more than one-third of the United States individually consider this procedural change, let’s look at what a 17-year-old man or woman CAN do:
- they can hold permanent employment and earn a steady paycheck (this age bracket earns and spends in excess of $130 billion annually)
- they can sign binding contracts for purchases, etc. (buy a car, rent an apartment, get credit cards)
- they can get married without parental consent (at least in in most states … and we know they can easily begin families)
- they can file tax returns and either pay income tax or get tax refunds (the taxation without representation argument was made in the show)
- they can be designated as heads of households
- they can get arrested and be tried as adults
In the past, 17-year-olds joined the armed forces and fought for this country. That used to be the firewall between granting the privilege to vote and keeping 18-year-olds out of the loop (“If you’re old enough to die for this country, you should be able to vote”). Not that barrier exists for the age of alcohol consumption.
At 17, people are far better informed than in any of time in our nation’s history. The access to positions, biographies and all other high definition political matters is limitless. Meanwhile, too many of their parents vote from complete ignorance which is almost a crime in itself; such a practice defeats the purpose of representative democracy when you have no clue about any of the candidates OTHER than party affiliation.
Lowering the voting age is not lowering the standard of those making our political choices. Adults do that fine and dandy all by themselves, and, in many cases, and have not done the best job possible in choosing the country’s leaders (federal, state or local). Judging by the enthusiasm generated by this year’s presidential campaign, some of us old foagies could remember a thing or two about why the process is vitally important. Adding a different set of eyes cannot be a bad thing for our democracy.
Thank Goodness I wasn’t watching “Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?” instead.

A rush from judgment: Why people don’t run for public office

Author's Note: The following is the unabridged text of the column that appeared in the Sept. 28 edition of the Dallas Morning News' Community Opinion page:
We live in a nation that strives, at times, to have a true “citizen’s democracy,” in which ordinary people are placed in charge of the various levels of government instead of the seemingly privileged few. It’s a noble concept, but lacks in one overriding ingredient – the willingness of those average citizens to step forward and serve.
For the most part, they simply do not want that light upon them. When voters examine the ballot on Nov. 4, many of the races will be unchallenged – the very antithesis of a democracy when one essentially has no choice about who governs.
Some will say money (or the lack of it) is the main reason for non-involvement and others will point to one-party strangleholds at many levels … in areas such as this. These are all valid arguments but miss the real reason most people fail to sing on that dotted line for political office – at ANY level; it’s far more personal than that.
Simply put, most men and women do not want to be judged by strangers; afraid such verdicts will always be negative. Placing your name on a ballot, asking others to go thumbs “up or down” on your worthiness for any office, cuts to one’s core as deep as any surgeon’s scalpel. Rather than face such judgment, they avoid it – at all costs.
It requires a special brand of moxie to seek election; call it ego or by another name, without it, you don’t success or even try. Successful “politicians” allow that attitude to be fed by the public’s reaction to them; the ones who win the most just don’t take it personally.
It’s the hardest lesson of all to learn, and the most personal choice ever made; to put oneself forward in deciding about people’s future (family, homes, community, the nation itself). When Barack Obama told the Denver convention audience, “This election isn’t about me,” it was his way of detaching the judgment from the effort. When people finally get to mark that ballot, it obviously will be about him and his opponent – anyway you slice it.
If you run for office, the following could happen to you. While living in a small, rural South Texas town, I ran for the local school board of a consolidated (dual community) district. In one area, I held my own against my opponent. But in her hometown, I got swamped 84-1 … and lost the election.
I didn’t mind losing, but it became a burr in my saddle to discover that single individual brave enough to support me against that electoral tidal wave. I never knew the identity of such a lone wolf; would have bought him or her a thick steak dinner simply to say “thanks.”
The following year, after editorializing against a city council incumbent for not paying back taxes yet voting to make others do the same, I ran to unseat him … and won. For the next two years, I was in the middle of the lion’s den, often without Daniel’s technicolor coat to protect me. However, confident of doing a decent job, I sought a second term.
Election Day coincided with a press convention in Laredo, so I left town two days prior to the vote, knowing three men (including my name) were vying for two seats. When I returned home 24 hours after actual balloting, I learned of my fourth-place finish in a three-man race. It seems while I was gone, someone (actually named Bubba) decided to conduct an impromptu, ad hoc write-in campaign (mostly by phone), and darn if he didn’t finish third. I was dead last.
Should I have cried or gotten angry at such an outcome? No, I actually laughed; it was pretty comical – fourth in a field of three. I was freed from harassing phone calls at night about someone’s dog or loose trash or broken water lines or missing girlfriend. I no longer had to fire friends who broke city policy or decide how much of other people’s money to spend annually. Serving is often just as hard as campaigning.
For most citizens, it’s a daunting responsibility and, at times, burdensome pressure. Those people tend to spend their entire existence avoiding such judgments, and, hence, should never be asked to run for any office. They wouldn’t be able to handle it.
But when you cull the herd, there’s not many left to do the important job of governing. It’s why incumbents last forever and fresh faces are hard to find.

Candidates in glass igloos shouldn’t throw stone snowballs

Oh, Sarah, do you know whacha done, by golly? You’ve potentially opened a Joe six-pack of whoops-ass upon you, your family and your party by trying to link Barack Obama with some guy who started a political movement (albeit professing violence and radical views) when little Barack was a mere youth of 8.
You claim that Barack “pals around with terrorists” yet you sleep with a guy who was a dues-paying member of a secessionist party in your home state of Alaska – a group you addressed as a governor and mayor and attended functions when your hubby Todd was just a face in the crowd.
Does THAT make the Toddster, the First Dude, a secessionist? A radical? Secession, as people in the South, and NOT meaning Minnesota to you, learned the hard way, is NOT an enduring term.
Please check out the following link to an article in The Atlantic:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/wm_ayers_v_todd_palin_tales_fr.php
And this website about the Alaska Independence Party;
http://www.akip.org

From the group’s own website:
The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.
The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party’s founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

And then a little info about the AIP founder, the late Joe Vogler, a strange man with weird ideas to MOST Americans.
From Wikipedia:
“The Alaskan Independence Party quotes Vogler as stating “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
“In a 1991 interview currently housed at the Oral History Program in the Rasmuson Library at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Vogler is recorded as saying, ‘The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won’t be buried under their damn flag. I’ll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation, they can bring my bones home.’”
Geez whiz, who is the real radical??????? If Todd isn't associated with Vogler, why is Obama a "pal" of someone he openly disavows????????
Eh? Wink at that.