Palin's Alliance With Stevens

There was nothing maverick about Sarah Palin's political alliance with Alaska Senator Ted Stevens.

Palin cut an ad featuring Stevens when she ran for governor and ran a 527 group on Stevens' behalf. When they worked together on a natural gas pipeline, Palin said, "It is so encouraging to hear again that Senator Stevens and I are singing from the same sheet of music."

And when Palin was picked as McCain's running mate, here's what Stevens said:

It's a great day for the nation and Alaskans. Governor Palin has proven herself as a bright, energetic leader for our State and will bring the same energy to the Vice Presidency. She will serve our country with distinction -- the first Alaskan and first woman on the Republican ticket. I share in the pride of all Alaskans.

I have known and worked with Sarah for over a decade from her service as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in her role as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors, and most recently as our Governor. She is attentive to her job and family, brings people together, and is able to make tough decisions.

The blog Populista Report has a great rundown of the Palin-Stevens relationship and asks, "Why does Palin pal around with felons?"

As recently as July, the same month Stevens was indicted, Palin said of him: "I have great respect for the Senator. He needs to be heard across America. His voice, his experience, his passion needs to be heard across America so that Alaska can contribute more." Here's the video.

Palin talks a lot about takin' on the ol' boys club in Alaska, but she seemed awfully comfortable around the oldest -- and most corrupt -- member of the club.

Comments (54)

1. Well, hogs at the trough, kinda hard to tell one from another

   Posted by leftofcenter at 10/28/2008 @ 11:33am

2. Even I think some of these are cheap shots.

   Did she take a bribe from Vesco or any of it's agents? did she make decisions as governor based on any donations they made to her? Did any bribe given to Stevens affect her governance?

   If not, it is just the way it is done, unfortuneatly.

   Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2008 @ 11:34am

3. Please Alaska, just ask your governor to come home and leave us alone.

   I hate to be rude but she's an idiot and we've already had 8 long years of an idiot.

   Posted by Hoot at 10/28/2008 @ 11:35am

4. "Why does Palin pal around with felons?"

   That question can only be legitimately asked is she "pals around with" a felon AFTER he's convicted.

   Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 11:39am

5. So now as a convicted felon, Stevens can't even vote for himself. ROTFLMAO.

   Posted by Extraneous at 10/28/2008 @ 11:43am

6. OH, come on, Mr Berman...didn't you know?

   If not for her courageous fight against corruption as Governor, Ted Stevens never would have been caught and convicted!!!!!

   (And if you believe that I got a Brooklyn Bridge to Nowhere to sell you....heheh)

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 11:48am

7. Uncle Ted and Aunt Sarah.....kind of heartwarming....if you are on the receiving end of political payola.....hmmm....hmmmm.....good.

   Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 11:49am

8. Hey, I know what Ted Stevens can try....

   "Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich is a SOCIALIST!!!!"

   That ALWAYS works!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 11:52am

9. That ALWAYS works!

   Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 11:52am

   i hear they're going to launch "raids" into canada.....

   that is after the "kleerance bin laden" tape "appears".

   Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 12:08pm

10. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 12:08pm

    Kind of surprised Palin never said "I also share a border with a known socialist country and I defended Alaska from those 'wealth re-distributors' in Canada as governor!"

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 12:26pm

11. That question can only be legitimately asked is she "pals around with" a felon AFTER he's convicted.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 11:39am

    Adm, Poindexter

    Ollie North

    Elliot Abrams

    John Negroponte

    Would that qualify in your book?

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2008 @ 12:35pm

12. " My friends, this great state of Alaska was bequeathed by God to us all. I will personally not rest until every resource is extracted, harvested & salvaged. We will all share in this bounty. Ladies & gentlemen, we will eat this state! Lower 48, inhale my methane!!"

    Senator Ted Stevens

    Posted by Sorelish at 10/28/2008 @ 12:37pm

13. Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2008 @ 12:35pm

    What are any of their associations with Gov. Palin?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 12:40pm

14. It's their associations with the current resident of 1600 P ave.

    And her support of that resident.

    See, I am learning how to play the con game of nth degrees of separation. It goes along with "Bomb who we want" while decrying the social upheaval of the 60's.

    Fun stuff.

    Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2008 @ 12:56pm

15. Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2008 @ 12:56pm

    "See, I am learning how to play the con game of nth degrees of separation."

    By "playing their game" your validating what they do. I didn't bring up any of Obama's or Biden's questionable associations.

    I stated that the above question was not relevant in this instance because Gov Palin's association with Stevens was BEFORE the felony convition. Your only reply to this is to make a list of some of Bush's questionable associations... how is that relevant to my post?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:02pm

16. Posted by crabwalk at 10/28/2008 @ 12:56pm

    Or consider this...

    what if we found out that Palin was an avid fan of Rush Limbaugh (an admitted drug addict and arrested "doctor shopper")....or G. Gordon Liddy (a convicted felon)....or watched Ollie North on Fox....or ever met with Scooter Libby (a convicted perjurer)!!!!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 1:03pm

17. Jayne as of yesterday Stevens is a convicted felon. Yep..jury of his peers, and Alaskans who are so buck the system types couldn't be wrong or could they....cough"Palin" cough.

    Posted by Bourdain at 10/28/2008 @ 1:07pm

18. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 1:03pm

    You can "what if" all day long. We're not talking hypotheticals right now.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:07pm

19. Posted by Bourdain at 10/28/2008 @ 1:07pm "Jayne as of yesterday Stevens is a convicted felon"

    That's NOW. They were referencing her PAST associations with Stevens as associtating with a felon. AT THAT TIME, he was NOT a convicted felon.

    That may be just semantics to some, but I wanted to point it out. YMMV

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:11pm

20. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 12:26pm

    You know, only from the GOP can you have a candidate like Gov. Palin clai on one hand that this "isn't the time to experiment with socialism," while at the same time telling anyone who will listen that she was responsible for providing EVERY CITIZEN of Alaska with a rebate check that was only accomplished by levying a progressive income tax on oil companies based on the size of their profits.

    Not that I disagree with the end result, but that sounds pretty darn similar to socialism.

    ("You betcha.")

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 1:16pm

21. Someone from the Right please tell me how Gov. Palin did not endorse a "redistribution of wealth."

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 1:19pm

22. We're not talking hypotheticals right now.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:07pm

    it seems to me that's all we ever do.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 1:23pm

23. Someone from the Right please tell me how Gov. Palin did not endorse a "redistribution of wealth."

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 1:19pm

    no. no. no.

    this is just part of karl rove's heart'n'mindpurchase america first plan.

    so it's o.k..

    it's just that in alaska they can actually pay for it.

    everywhere else the fundage must be borrowed so they cut taxes.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/28/2008 @ 1:29pm

24. Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 1:19pm "Someone from the Right please tell me how Gov. Palin did not endorse a "redistribution of wealth." "

    I think the difference is that the land the oil companies are drilling on is state-owned land. Correct?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:38pm

25. I stated that the above question was not relevant in this instance because Gov Palin's association with Stevens was BEFORE the felony convition.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:02pm | warn this person

    Jayne....have you been following Alaskan politics? Perpwalk on Parade for Big Oil and Politicians.....So Palin had no idea of Steven's association with VECO and all that that entails?

    As I recall she worked for the oil & gas commission for the State of Alaska before Stevens was convicted. Come on. Hypothetical?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 1:39pm

26. Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:38pm

    So if the Oil Companies drill on state-owned (or Federally-owned) land...

    politically, you'd have no problem with a 100% levy on the profit from the sale of the oil extracted?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 1:44pm

27. Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 1:39pm "Jayne....have you been following Alaskan politics?"

    Not particularly, no. But hasn't VECO supported many candidates over the years, both Dem and Rep? And is the governor of a state supposed to shun any politician with questionable associations? I don't think she'd have anyone left to work with.

    "As I recall she worked for the oil & gas commission for the State of Alaska before Stevens was convicted."

    And...what is the point? Key word here is BEFORE.

    "Come on. Hypothetical?"

    Yes. Mask was talking "what ifs" and I was talking about the facts. Saying Palin "pals around with felons" means she would have to have seen into the future and known that Stevens was going to be convicted. Wait until she actually has a relationship with Stevens again (since he has become a convicted felon) before tossing around such accusations.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:48pm

28. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 1:44pm "politically, you'd have no problem with a 100% levy on the profit from the sale of the oil extracted?"

    Please clarify what you mean by "100% levy of the profit".

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:56pm

29. Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:56pm

    Well, say 95% profits tax (let Exxon-Mobil make a LITTLE cash off the deal).

    95% of the profits from oil extracted from state or Federally-owned land is taxed by the Federal and state government (revenue sharing 50-50 if you like between the state and the Fed).

    Any problem with that?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 2:07pm

30. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 2:07pm

    Sounds a bit steep to me.

    I believe the tax on the oil extracted from the state land in Alaska is taxed, AT MOST, 75% of the gross price of a barrel of oil (that's not 75% on the profit). As the price of the barrel goes down, that percentage goes down also.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 2:16pm

31. Wait until she actually has a relationship with Stevens again (since he has become a convicted felon) before tossing around such accusations.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    So you are not a "felon" until you are caught and convicted? Technically I guess you are right. Does this imply that it is all right to associate with persons who are engaging in criminal behavior or unethical behavior as defined by law?

    Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 2:25pm

32. Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 2:25pm "Does this imply that it is all right to associate with persons who are engaging in criminal behavior or unethical behavior as defined by law?"

    Why stop there? Maybe we should condemn anyone who associates with anyone BELIEVED to be engaging in criminal/unethical behavior! Maybe we should stop having trials altogether and just say, "We all know he's guilty. Just go ahead and toss him in jail!"

    I take issue with the semantics of the question as it's purposely false/misleading. Period.

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 2:31pm

33. I think the difference is that the land the oil companies are drilling on is state-owned land. Correct?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008

    True. Most is. But it is frankly immaterial to the point. Alaska leases the land from the state. Fair enough. But Alaska has not taken over the means of production and distribution. Palin, however, supported an increase in a windfall profit tax -- pegged to the company's profits. Yet, Obama's calls for a energy windfall tax are decried as socialism -- and he is otherwise hammered for supposedly advocating a redistribution of wealth.

    You tell me how Alaska's policy is any different.

    Who will have to pay for the increase in taxes levied by Alaska? Citizens of other states in the form of higher energy prices.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 2:34pm

34. Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 2:34pm "Who will have to pay for the increase in taxes levied by Alaska? Citizens of other states in the form of higher energy prices."

    Perhaps. But right now, the price of a gallon of gas in Alaska is almost a dollar higher than it is in my state.

    The county taxes on nuclear plants haven't proven to affect the cost we pay for nuclear energy. But they have paid to repair the roads in those counties and build new schools.

    YMMV

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 2:44pm

35. Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 2:16pm

    Actually, you realize you just INCREASED the amount taxed, not decreased it.

    If you tax as a percent of price per barrel and not percentage of profit....then at $50 a barrel the Oil Company pays a tax of $37.50 per barrel, which would INCLUDE their cost to extract it.

    My tax on the PROFIT allows them to keep tax-free the entire extraction, labor, etc. costs.

    But hey, if you're for that...fine with me. You DO realize that your plan is more left-wing than mine?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 2:53pm

36. But they have paid to repair the roads in those counties and build new schools.

    YMMV

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 2:44pm

    But now you are moving away from the Alaska situation and getting into indirect beneficiaries of taxation in general -- not a situation where all citizens get a check based on private corporate profits.

    Look, my point is simply that every tax plan inherently results in a "distribution of wealth." And you have failed to even try to defend how Alaska's system is any different. So such gotcha attacks on Obama because he said "redistribution" ring pretty hollow.

    Now, some redistributions are more direct than others. I think, however, it is reasonably fair to conclude that a system that pays each citizen a set amount based solely on the profits of a private business (Alaska's) is a very direct redistribution of wealth. Obama's plan, while admittedly a redistribution, is more indirect -- like your example of taxes on nuclear power plants paying for roads. Instead of nuclear power plants, simply replace it with higher taxation on wealthy individuals and corporations. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy is also an indirect redistribution because it necessarily increases the proportional tax burden on lower income, and results in cuts to programs that could be used for those in lower incomes.

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:42pm

37. what does YMMV mean by the way?

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:43pm

38. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 2:53pm

    I read one article on the Alaska oil tax a few months ago, so my numbers are probably off as I was going from memory. I'll make a note to ask my bro-in-law who's stationed in Alaska (he's visiting us right now). He always keeps up to date on these things, especially when they directly affect him.

    I still maintain it "sounds a bit steep to me."

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 4:02pm

39. Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 3:43pm

    Your Mileage May Vary :)

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 4:03pm

40. BTW, here's some fun...

    Sarah Palin is now a "9/11 Conspiracy Theorist"! (Somebody call RESE!)

    Alaska Governor gives unexpected answer during Ohio rally

    Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Tuesday, October 28, 2008

    John McCain's presidential running mate Sarah Palin, much to the bewilderment of the 9/11 truth community, seemingly expressed support for a new investigation into the terrorist attacks during a rally in Ohio last week.

    Asked by We Are Change Ohio, "Do you support the family members and first responders who are calling for a new 9/11 investigation?," Palin responded, "I do."

    "I do because I think that helps us get to the point of never again, and if anything that we could do could still complete that reminder out there," the Alaska Governor added.

    Palin was aware of the context because she then asked the cameraman if he had been affected by 9/11.

    Of course, one would have to be incredibly naive to think that Palin, at best a befuddled Republican poster child and at worst another establishment Neo-Con, would follow through on her support and back a new 9/11 investigation should John McCain snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and take the White House.

    And despite the fact that John McCain himself once gladly posed with 9/11 truth activists for photographs, the Arizona Senator penned a scathing foreword to Popular Mechanics' (non-political, they assure us) hit piece book Debunking 9/11 Myths, in which he claimed that questioning the official 9/11 story is an insult to the victims, despite the fact that the victims and first responders are the ones calling for a new investigation.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 4:06pm

41. *yawn*

    Stevens is obviously a crooked fuck, and so is Palin to a degree.

    But honestly if we're going to talk about crookedness and general hypocrisy let's talk about Obama's relationship with the banking industry?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 4:06pm

42. For most people, Palin's expression of support for a new investigation seems to be borne out of a desperate attempt to say anything to get votes as McCain slips further behind Obama in the polls on a daily basis with the election just five days to go.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 4:07pm

43. Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 4:07pm

    Funny isn't it, since the republican led investigation into her own misdeeds and abuses of power were deemed by the far right-wing as just another "liberal conspiracy"

    Doesn't seem like she has too much faith in investigations.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 4:10pm

44. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/28/2008 @ 4:11pm

    Hey, Larry, what's your spin on Saint Sarah suddenly joining forces with the 9/11 Truthers?

    (Hint- You could be honest and say she was either stupidly ignorant or pandering for votes!...heheh)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 10/28/2008 @ 4:25pm

45. LIBERTY -

    Non-responsive. Try again.

    Unless you think the Alaskan scheme doesn't fit because it "takes" from a corporation? And not a "wage earner" or "individual?"

    Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 4:25pm

46. Why stop there? Maybe we should condemn anyone who associates with anyone BELIEVED to be engaging in criminal/unethical behavior! Maybe we should stop having trials altogether and just say, "We all know he's guilty. Just go ahead and toss him in jail!"

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/28/2008 @ 2:31pm | warn this person

    I think thats already being done by Bush is it not?

    The "pals" around characterization is the turning of guilt by association onto McCain/Palin....i.e., Ayers....but the Stevens association by McPalin is far stronger, and by a country mile more suspect.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 5:08pm

47. LIBERTY - Non-responsive. Try again. Unless you think the Alaskan scheme doesn't fit because it "takes" from a corporation? And not a "wage earner" or "individual?" Posted by Hman23 at 10/28/2008 @ 4:25pm

    Hman23 is spot on. In fact corporations are considered individuals in the eyes of the law, hence they have certain rights ie property rights etc. and responsibilities like paying income taxes aptly named corporate taxes. So when Palin takes tax revenue received from corporations and redistributes it to Every citizens of her state some of who are no doubt poor and don't pay any income tax, she is doing exactly what lvlibertyz accuses the democrats of doing, "they are going to increase income taxes on some wage earners and give that money to others, even if they pay no income taxes."

    Posted by hdthoreau at 10/28/2008 @ 6:04pm

48. If we're talking about associations, why is it okay for certain right-wingers for Sarah Palin to be MARRIED to a secessionist?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Independence_Party

    Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 6:46pm

49. Vogler (the party's founder) has been quoted as stating:

    "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

    I wonder if he's talking about the real or the fake America LOL

    Posted by TexasFlood at 10/28/2008 @ 6:49pm

50. Hey, if Senator Dirtbag does the stand up thing and resigns, then the Stepford Governator will have to appoint his successor. If Stevens gets re-elected next week and then resigns, Sarah Palin will appoint his successor to finish the term, I think. I don't know Alaska law.

    Maybe she will appoint herself? I wonder if the law would let her?

    This happened once in Minnesota. A governor, I think Wendell Anderson, appointed himself to fill a vacated Senate seat. It caused wicked uproar but the guy still got to be a U.S. Senator. His political career was toast after the end of his Senate term. . . but, hey, he took the shot.

    I wonder if Sarah could do this? If she could, would she? If she wants a future after losing next week, being Governor of teeny, tiny Alaska is gonna look pretty tame to her now. She's gonna need a bigger stage. You know she likes the taste of national coverage.

    I hate Sarah Palin but she's fun to watch, in a comedic/horror movie kind of way.

    Posted by Tree_Fitz at 10/28/2008 @ 11:08pm

51. Well Sarah is palling around with corrupt leaders. hmmmmm her big house in Wasilla was built by the same contractor that got the contract to build the Wasilla sports complex. Is someone investigating that? Did she learn from Stevens' playbook? questions questions.

    Posted by TKDuff at 10/29/2008 @ 12:47am

52. Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 5:08pm "I think thats already being done by Bush is it not?"

    I thought you hated Bush. Now, if he's doing that already, it's okay for you to also?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 09:53am

53. Posted by OneVote at 10/28/2008 @ 5:08pm "I think thats already being done by Bush is it not?"

    I thought you hated Bush. Now, if he's doing that already, it's okay for you to also?

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 09:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

    In your world, unsavory association and alliance with corruption is not corruption and reprehensible until proven to be in a court of law. This is incredibly naive or incredibly self-serving. As a professed champion of the poor in your community, I would think you be apallled by the different standards of justice - one for the rich and connected, and another for the poor and disenfranchised. When the fox controls the henhouse, your standard guarantees a perpetuation of lawlessness that is destroying us. In my world, the "stink" test is a better barometer of probable questionable associations and alliances.

    Posted by OneVote at 10/29/2008 @ 12:00pm

54. "In your world, unsavory association and alliance with corruption is not corruption and reprehensible until proven to be in a court of law."

    False. What I believe is: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". ie. Hold up your own candidate to the same standards you hold the other up to. Or even hold yourself to the same standards as you hold others. My question "Now, if he's doing that already, it's okay for you to also?" addresses this very issue. Just because someone else does something, doesn't mean you have to stoop to that same level. That's what we were taught as kids and what most of us teach our own kids. (If Tom jumps off a bridge...) ;)

    Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 12:31pm