Alaska is a land of character and characters – colorful folks who’ve become deliciously quirky icons and who, like the late Uncle Ted Stevens, and the current Don Young, are mixed bags. Sure, the Congressman for All Alaska is admirably unafraid of his party’s leadership in DC. It’s always great to see him thumb his nose at John Boehner. And he completely deserves a gold star for dubbing Governor Sean Parnell “Captain Zero.” But must he wear a propeller beanie on his head in a committee hearing, or wave the penis bone of a walrus at the head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

There’s a certain quirky lad who fits this tradition nicely (the mixed bag one, not the walrus penis bone one). He was characterized by Sarah Palin in her book Going Rogue as an “effete young chap,” and came in third in a three-way race for governor against Palin, and former Democratic governor Tony Knowles.

There’s much to like about Republican Andrew Halcro, especially when considering how far his party has drifted into wingnuttery of late. He’s not a bigot, he doesn’t make demands to see the “real birth certificate,” and has spoken out eloquently against right-wing chestnuts like private school vouchers.  The voucher system, he says, does not make economic sense. He rightfully lambastes the Education Committee for passing HB145 on to the Finance Committee with ”no question how we fund a new program when we’re currently struggling to fund our existing education obligations.”

At a time when many Republicans hyperventilate about the secret Muslim Kenyan in the White House, or try to take steps to ban Sharia law here in Alaska, Halcro is a refreshingly cerebral, civilized sort of fellow. Like David Brooks and David Frum, he’s the sort of Republican of whom progressives will sometimes say nice things.

He has even brilliantly poked fun at his own foppishness in an unforgettable fireside reading of that offending passage from Going Rogue.

So, that’s the nice part.

The less appealing side appears when Halcro channels his inner Mitt Romney, resplendent in all his out-of-touch One-Percentish hyperbolic finery.

The Oil Tax Debate

Like Romney, Halcro has assumed the unenviable task of insisting to people who ought to know better, that not enough income has been upwardly redistributed to The One Percent. At a time Alaska faces domestic violence and sexual assault epidemics, chronic poverty in its rural villages, and school districts that are being forced to cut critically important positions, Halcro insists that it is some of the most profitable corporations on the planet and their absurdly compensated executives who require our sympathy, and our money, from our oil. If the Big Three were only richer, we’d have nothing to worry about. This is, to put it politely, a tough sell.

When Alaskan schoolchildren go to Juneau, and beg for desperately needed resources, only to be told “no” by Governor Zero, it’s a bit obscene to suggest that those who deserve our advocacy and our money are a few bazillionaires in Texas and Great Britain.

Halcro may fan himself and gasp “class warfare!” at this, but the component parts of fiscal policy do not occur in a vacuum. That is to say, there are two sides to the ledger, and each dollar taken from the state of Alaska and given to Texan and British oil companies is a dollar that is not going into our Permanent Fund, not building out our young, underdeveloped infrastructure, and not maintaining our commitment to educate the next generation of Alaskans.

The governor can brag all he likes in his State of the State Address about the sweet economic metrics that trickle like fiscal honey across our state budget—relatively low unemployment and foreclosure rates, coupled with budget surpluses at a time the Lower 48 states are running in the red. But if the net outcome of this is at the expense of our most vulnerable – selling out our future in order to subsidize Conoco CEO Jim Mulva’s next yacht – we may as well be Mississippi. And nobody wants that.

“Fiscal Conservatism”

Why is it most Republicans only discover “fiscal conservatism” when it comes to school kids and basic services, but in the case of tax giveaways to obscenely profitable corporations, they turn into drunk sailors on shore leave?  Even Halcro who comes down on the right side of “school choice” is perfectly willing to throw billions to the oil companies, with guarantee of return on investment. He says on his blog regarding vouchers:

It’s a bad idea. This year we’re paying private tuitions, next year were funding private school improvements. Anytime you give groups with political power direct access to state coffers, you’re in for a penny in for a pound.

Yes. Groups with political power always want more. More power, and more money. And it’s up to us to decide when enough is enough, and to restrain the rampant greed that would rob our state coffers and take money from the things we value, in order to enrich themselves beyond excess.

He goes on:

In this case, education committee members appeared to be all to willing to ignore the pesky little details like how do we financially sustain this new program and how will this impact the public school system which serves ninety percent of Alaskan students.

And he asks us to ignore that hypocrisy, and ignore the pesky little details like how do we financially sustain this $2 billion annual give away, and how will this impact the vital services and programs that serve all the residents of the state?

Perhaps the saddest part of Halcro’s sheltered, clueless elitism is that it colors the admirable parts of him. He’s someone whom thinking people want to like. He is witty, and charming, and good company over a martini. I’d like to think he takes his positions against homophobia and school vouchers on their merits, but have begun like many to wonder whether he simply cannot stomach the ghastly, downmarket Tea Party demographic much in the way old-monied Yankees like Bush Sr. of Kennebunkport could never quite stomach Southern rednecks.

Halcro in Carhartts would look as credible as Dukakis in a tank.

Why So Snippy?

Which brings us to a bizarre trajectory played out in the Alaskan media over the past several months—Halcro’s increasingly heated and snippy tone toward those with the nerve to not share his position on oil taxes.

It’s bizarre because, let’s face it, Halcro has much more in common with Bill Wielechowski and Hollis French than with most who share his oil tax position. I could actually conceive of the three of them matching wits in an impassioned but cerebral debate over a good microbrew.

I can not imagine Andrew enjoying himself while listening to monosyllabic blatherings from Cathy Giessel about how our biggest entitlement problem is public education.

Senators Wielechowski and French are not, as Halcro’s predictable, played-out meme has it, “anti-business” or “anti-oil and gas” or “anti mom and apple pie,” and it’s clear to anyone who is even halfheartedly paying attention. Just to set the record straight, they also don’t wish to kick down your door in the dead of night, eat your puppies, and inject you with liquid socialism.

No, contrary to Halcro’s breathless hyperbole about how Sen. French is a “one man assault on Alaska’s economy” etc. etc., the difference between the senator and Halcro is the difference between believing our relationship to the oil companies should be a partnership versus a servile one. Do we acknowledge that the relationship between Big Oil and Alaska has been one of mutual benefit, and move forward together, or do we become the beaten dog who hopes the master doesn’t get angry with us and smack us around with an empty pipeline? Do we simply want to acknowledge that it’s our oil, and it’s our responsibility to get the most we can for it , for the benefit of our future? Or do we want to hand over $10 billion from our bottom line to multinational corporations over the next five years and pretend that it won’t make a very real difference in the quality of our lives?

This flexibility-of-principle is a pattern with Halcro, who currently runs Avis Rent A Car in Anchorage. Happy to support an income tax, a sales tax, the raiding of the permanent fund, and even a head tax on Alaska workers (including children) during his legislative stint, apparently the only people who deserve tax breaks in Halcro’s view are oil …and rental car companies. Go figure.

It’s been correctly pointed out that oil pays 90% of the bills in our state. And the first thing any investment advisor will tell you is to diversify your portfolio instead of putting all your eggs into the same basket. In the case of Alaskan oil, it gives a handful of powerful corporations an undue amount of influence over those we elect to represent us. Alaska’s economy needs more diversity, not less.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road

Which brings us to the final Romney analogy. While a local right-wing blogger or two and their twelve readers may be urging Halcro to challenge Sen. French, simply because they hate the latter for being a thorn in their side, Halcro shouldn’t kid himself. Supporters of Hollis French will walk across broken glass to get to the polls because he’s likable, he’s effective, he’s smart, and he makes sense. Mental ninja gymnastics are not required to understand his positions across issues. Halcro just doesn’t inspire that kind of commitment from the GOP’s activist base, largely because they correctly view him as not one of their own, accurately remember him giving the Republican caucus the finger during his short legislative stint, and can be forgiven for wondering why, save for his position on oil taxes, he’d even run as a Republican anyway.

He’d probably get a nice check from Rebecca Logan and the rest of the oily “Make Alaska Submissive Coalition,” but good luck getting any of them to knock on doors in freezing weather.

The winning gladiator, in whatever desperate shape he happens to be – steak on his eye, split lip, dragging one leg, bleeding on the carpet – has earned the right to move on to the big fight. He’ll be wildly flailing his half-functional limb at the current champion who’s had his feet up, eating grapes and watching the carnage.

During Ronald Reagan’s 1966 campaign for governor of California, he established the so-called Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

“I am, in fact, the legitimate heir to the Reagan movement, not some liberal from Massachusetts,” Gingrich proclaimed on Sunday while simultaneously giving the Gipper’s eleventh, the finger. Don’t speak ill of a fellow Republican? Screw that. Newt has tasted win. And he likes it like crack. He’ll do anything for more, man… Anything. And with his numbers falling, and now behind by double digits to Mitt Romney, that means amping up the vitriol.

Having called Romney “pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-tax increase” on Sunday, Gingrich added the title “pro-gay rights” on Monday, in an acidic interview with Fox News. He rewound his last few days of attacks, combining all of his insults and all his vitriol into a string of remarkable assaults on Romney.

And so, the Romney Gingrich mad elephant fight rages on, with Republicans frantically choosing sides in an epic struggle for the right to lose in November. And the Democrats just laugh.

In Palinesque style, Gingrich has also perfected the art of the shameless pander. What’s a trip to Florida without promising the space coast a new lunar colony (by the end of his second term), or without casually mentioning that his opponent, during his time as Massachusetts governor, vetoed funds to expand the provision of kosher food for retirees. Gingrich, the Lutheran-turned-Baptist-turned-Catholic, ablaze with smugness and unashamed by his own transparency, announced that “Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare.”

NASA – check
Jews – check
Retirees – check
Homophopes, evangelicals, and gun nuts? Check, check, and check.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney has countered by throwing four times as much money into his own advertising, and gazing down his nose, calling Gingrich’s desperate attacks “sad.” He has played the superiority card as only the perfectly coiffed moneyed elite can play it. (insert golf clap here)

And what would a bout of clown-on-clown violence be without a caustic screeching ring girl?

Yes, Sarah Palin has chimed in denouncing the Florida battle as “Stalinesque” and “cannibalism.” “I’m not whining about the viciousness,” she notes, but the “rewritten history.” “Enough is enough with the lies about Newt Gingrich.”

Nope, the viciousness is A-OK with Palin. Big thumbs up for that. As a matter of fact, Palin’s pseudo-endorsement of Gingrich was only, she claimed, to keep the competition going. Don’t call off the bloodbath yet! They’re both still technically standing! Palin’s rationale from the marble seat in the Coliseum where she sits is that “we need a big dog who has been sharpened and shaped through the school of hard knocks the most.”

And so they bludgeon on, with Gingrich vowing to take it all the way to the convention, and President Obama going up against the “sharpened and shaped big dog” who can stay upright and conscious the longest.

Our thoughts wander to November, and we picture the reigning champion, in gleaming Brooks Brothers gladiator-wear, fist pumping, nostrils flared, approaching the wheezing, swaying “big dog.” The champ touches his confused, sweaty opponent with an index finger to the solar plexus, and down he goes like a big oozing tree. A loser-shaped ring of dust rises around him as he lands.

But in the meantime, there is butter to melt, and salt to sprinkle, and corn to pop. We have many rounds to go before the end of this dog fight. Here’s to Florida. We don’t really care who wins, so the best we can do is hope for an entertaining night.

Airline spokesperson Bobbie Egan told msnbc.com that over the years the airline has received letters and e-mails from customers for and against the card. Last fall the company decided to stop distributing the cards because, Egan said, “We believe it’s the right thing to do in order to respect the diverse religious beliefs and cultural attitudes of all our customers and employees.”

The decision was welcomed by many, but distressed Alaska’s ex-half-governor who seemed baffled by the company’s decision posted a lamentation on Facebook. “It feels so odd that some may be offended by a little card with an encouraging non-denominational verse from the Psalms…” mused the befuddled Palin on her Facebook page. Not respecting diversity?  The card was non-denominational! It covers all Christian denominations. I mean… who could possibly take that the wrong way?

In a letter she wrote to the airline, she mused

“The Alaska Airlines traditions should be looked upon as an all-American, encouraging, hopeful gesture.”

What, after all, is more all-American than the Bible?

Palin likely doesn’t realize that Alaska Airlines meals have been served only in the first class cabin for the past six years. The rest of us in coach class have had to make due with a wing, minus the prayer, since that time. It’s the godless $7 snack pack for the masses.

And speaking of Christianity, the enemies of good are not only busy encouraging “censorship” of airline propaganda,  they also seem to have it in for Newt Gingrich.

Palin, yesterday characterized the recent wave of conservative criticism levied against presidential contender New Gingrich as the lamestream establishment attempting to “crucify” the former Speaker. It is hard to avoid the Christ-like metaphor when discussing Newt.

“Look at Newt Gingrich, what’s going on with him via the establishment’s attacks. They’re trying to crucify this man and rewrite history and rewrite what it is that he has stood for all these years.”

Rewriting history, we can all agree, is unconscionable, and the tool of bloviators who cannot stand on actual history to make their points.

One of the Roman soldiers who nailed Newt to the metaphorical cross, conservative columnist Peggy Noonan, called Gingrich an “angry attack muffin.” Ouch. That one’s going to leave a mark. The blistering attack brought forth this avalanche of word salad from Palin:

“They maybe subscribe such characterizations of Newt via words like that, but they don’t subscribe those to say Mitt Romney when he or his surrogates do the same thing. That’s that typical hypocrisy stuff in the media, you know, I’ve lived with over a couple of decades in the political arena. It is hypocritical of the media to subscribe to one candidate and not another, that kind of ‘angry attack muffin’ verbiage to one and not the other.”

Oh that “typical hypocrisy stuff” that has been dogging Palin since she first ran for the Wasilla City Council, twenty years ago. I can’t wait to see how she defends President Obama against the name calling, politics of personal destruction, and the rewriting of history from the GOP.

By Carl Johnson

While preparing to head off alone into the bowels of the Death Star to disable the tractor beam holding theMillenium Falcon captive, Obi Wan Kenobi rhetorically asked of Han Solo, “Who is more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?”  I think of such questions sometimes when my legislators act foolishly.

You don’t have to be a lawyer to be a state legislator.  You also shouldn’t have to know all the relevant facts in relation to a proposed law in order to sponsor it.  But somewhere along the way, someone who knows the law and the facts should step in before a law is proposed.  Alaska State Representative Kyle Johansen shows his ignorance of the law and the facts with his sponsorship of HJR31, which calls upon Congress to designate Central Park in Manhattan a wilderness area, and thus prohibit any development absent approval from Congress.

“WTF?” you may rightly ask.  Rep. Johansen claims that the goal of the resolution is to bring to light the ridiculousness of Alaskans being prevented from developing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Apparently Rep. Johansen is not afraid of looking like a total and complete idiot, and also disparaging the intelligence of Alaskans on a national stage, by making this proposal.

The resolution is legally and factually flawed in several ways.

First, only existing federal lands can be set aside as wilderness.  The National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964.  Under the Act, only existing federal lands are eligible for selection as wilderness, and five specific factors must be satisfied: (1) the land is under federal ownership and management, (2) the area consists of at least five thousand acres of land, (3) human influence is “substantially unnoticeable,” (4) there are opportunities for solitude and recreation, and (5) the area possesses “ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” Not surprisingly, Rep. Johansen’s proposed resolution does not address these requirements.  Central Park would not satisfy at a minimum the first three factors: it’s not federal land, it consists of only 843 acres, and the influence of humans is substantially noticeable.

Second, under the Alaska Statehood Act – similar to all states that joined the Union following the original 13 Colonies – the State of Alaska was entitled to select 103,350,000 acres of land not already set aside by the Federal government for other uses.  Alaska has been granted an additional 1.5 million acres of land for university and mental health trust uses.  The lands encompassing what is now the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were never eligible for State selection and have, since the purchase of Alaska from the Russians in 1867, always been Federal lands.  Thus, creating the Arctic Refuge never took away from Alaska any land that was ever granted to Alaska.

Third, under the Alaska Constitution, the people of Alaska agreed to be bound by the terms of the Alaska Statehood Act that exclude certain lands from use by Alaska.  Specifically, Article 12, Section 12 states: “The State of Alaska and its people forever disclaim all right and title in or to any property belonging to the United States or subject to its disposition, and not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions, by or under the act admitting Alaska to the Union … The State and its people agree that, unless otherwise provided by Congress, the property, as described in this section, shall remain subject to the absolute disposition of the United States.”  Thus, by insisting that the Federal government allow Alaskans to do what they want with lands retained by the Federal government, Rep. Johansen (and virtually every other elected State official on this issue) has violated his oath of office, which includes a promise to “support and defend … the Constitution of the State of Alaska.”

Fourth, as noted above, Central Park is not federal land – it has always belonged to the people of New York. But, if Rep. Johansen is concerned about protecting it from abuse, it was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1963.  Plus, simply looking at the park not only in photographs and maps but in person (Rep. Johansen, have you ever been to Central Park? I have …), you can tell it is not under threat of development.  There is only one building in the park, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and if the park hasn’t been developed by now, it won’t.  One could also say that it is a model for management, as most of the expenses for maintenance of the park are raised by a private non-profit, the Central Park Conservancy, thus alleviating much of that burden from the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation.

Finally, the claimed motivation behind Rep. Johansen’s resolution strongly suggests that the portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge where oil companies and State legislators want to develop, what is known as the 1002 Area of the coastal plain, is designated wilderness under the Wilderness Act.  It is not.

One could say that Central Park is already like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  An oasis of habitat, surrounded by development (the North Slope region to the immediate west of the Refuge is a vast network of oil and gas infrastructure), it should be left alone to continue providing the valuable habitat it does to the many species that thrive within.  In fact, Rep. Johansen’s stunt is a compelling argument in favor of wilderness designation for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s 1002 Area on the coastal plain.  The biodiversity and importance of the Arctic Refufe far outweighs that provided in the mere 843 acres seen in Central Park.

Oh, and Rep. Johansen, I would fire your research staff.

Was Sarah Palin’s proclamation, “If I were in South Carolina, I’d vote for Newt” really an endorsement, or just her attempt to keep the wounded elephant that is the current presidential GOP lineup limping forward as far as possible before it collapses under the weight of its own unelectability? Correspondence from Palin seems to indicate the latter.

During Palin’s VP candidacy, her relationship with Newt Gingrich was tumultuous at best. Emails sent on Palin’s Yahoo! account while she was governor, which (despite being in the hands of the state of Alaska) have never been made available to the public, reveal that Newt had some avuncular words of wisdom for the greenhorn candidate:

She didn’t need local and state allies, not with Newt Gingrich regularly emailing advice like suggesting she not answer difficult question and instead “she should reframe it into the question she wishes they asked,” or better yet, “When your opponent has posed a question designed to put you on defense, the right strategy is to destroy the very legitimacy of the question and pose a new question of your own.” [From Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin - A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years]

But after the unsuccessful campaign, the relationship between the two became more strained. Things came to a boiling point in the summer of 2009, just weeks before Palin quit the governorship of Alaska.

This transformation had to do with a speaking engagement on June 8 at the Washington D.C. Convention Center. Sarah was originally invited to be the keynote speaker at an annual congressional fundraising dinner. As was her custom, she hesitated before accepting and Gingrich was invited as a fall-back. A suddenly dis-invited and miffed Sarah threatened not to attend before begrudgingly relenting.

On June 7, the day before Gingrich’s speech, Sarah wrote to her close inner-circle of administration confidants (including Frank Bailey):

From: gshp

Subject: Fw: Newt

…I don’t know why we have to protect the elites who do things like this so we don’t “ruffle feathers” by keeping it to ourselves. Newt “uninvited” me yesterday to speak at tomorrow’s NSRC (sic for NRSC, the National Republican Senatorial Committee). I was the surprise guest … I’d be sitting at his table, unannounced (though I think they were purposefully already leaking it, I know Meg (Stapleton) leaked it to Politico), then would get up to do a surprise speech and introduction of Newt. So… I went from being the invited keynote speaker back in February, to just the surprise introducer of the speaker this month, to the back-of-the-bus’er (“sit down and shut up”) the day before the event. One of the organizers told Meg last night that Newt pulled the plug, said he didn’t want me to “steal the show”.

This has nothing to do with me. It has to do with the machine, and egos, and power. Their action…tells us they’re not ready to walk the walk and reform the party…

It knocks the political wind right out of my gut – but really we shouldn’t be surprised. And when I mentioned to Mike Reagan [Ronald Reagan’s stepson and GOP commentator] the other night that I’d be referencing Newt in my introduction of him, he wasn’t overly thrilled…maybe there’s something others see in Newt… Keep this confidential until we figure out how I’m supposed to explain flying all the flippin’ way across the country – leaving my baby at home – to be at this dinner, then we get accused of dodging the substantive events like the NSRC, when in reality they kicked us to the curb. I hate politics. 

Later that day, Sarah added more insight:

…Yes, (Newt/GOP) are egotistical, narrow minded machine goons... but all the more reason God protected me from getting up on stage in front of 5000 political and media “elites” to praise him, then it be shown across the nation. At some point Newt would have shown his true colors anyway and we would have been devastated having known we’d earlier prostituted ourselves up in front of the country introducing him and acting like that good ol’ rich white guy is the savior of the party.

Plus, I had nothing to wear, and God knew that too. Party machinery sucks. I can’t tell you how much I hate it – nothing ever changes – we went through it before and after the VP campaign… I’ve gone through it all my career. We just don’t fit into it, and maybe we should thank God for that. [From Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin - A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years]

Despite the good fortune of being saved from a wardroble gaffe by divine intervention, words of comfort and consolation came from Palin aide Ivy Frye: “Screw Newt, and let him take the heat for himself…”

None of this previous bad blood (of which Gingrich may or may not have been aware) seemed to dampen his enthusiasm over Sarah Palin’s comments yesterday. Nor did her explanation that the reason she’d vote for him is simply to see the carnage continue seem to faze him. He said he was “thrilled” after talking to Todd Palin who had formally endorsed him last week, and went on “It’s a signal to every conservative that the one conservative vote that’s effective is to Newt Gingrich and that’s very helpful.”

Palin’s desire to watch the five-way Republican cage fight is so appealing she told South Carolinians that she’d actually vote for the man she described as an “elite” “egotistical, narrow-minded machine goon” – a “good ol’ rich white guy” whom Palin said she didn’t even want to introduce to a crowd of a few thousand lest she “prostitute herself” in front of the nation.

We’ll find out on Saturday if the Palin non-endorsement endorsement helps Gingrich carry the day, and whether Palin continues to urge voters to cast their ballots for a man she actively dislikes.

Palin says that criticism of Romney’s record as the head of Bain Capital is fair and that he should provide the public with proof of his claims that he helped to create 100,000 jobs during his time with the firm.

“Sometimes it gets rough and tumble as you try to hold these candidates accountable for what they are claiming,” the woman who claimed to have said “thanks, but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere” said in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel Wednesday.

The woman who told Alaskans to hold her accountable before she didn’t want them to, went on to defend candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry, saying he was simply holding Romney accountable when he called him a “vulture capitalist.”

“This isn’t about a politician making huge profits in the private sector,” best-selling author, Fox News analyst, and new lecture circuit multimillionaire Palin said. “I think what Governor Perry is getting at is that Governor Romney has claimed to have created 100,000 jobs at Bain and people are wanting to know is there proof of that claim?”

Back when Palin was a Republican governor herself, she was far less concerned with the goings on of Republicans on the national scene. When she was elected governor in 2006, current Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney who is now on the receiving end of Palin’s waggling finger, was the head of the Republican Governors’ Association. Then Republican Governor Sarah Palin wasn’t even sure who he was. Internal emails from Palin during that time show her referring to him as “Milt Romney” until she was finally corrected, and confessed:

I argued with [aide] Frank [Bailey] and others, as I insisted his name was MILT, not Mitt.

That’s keeping your finger on the pulse of the national party.

Palin said in the Hannity interview that it is better for the Republicans to do the vetting now, since the Obama campaign is only going to do it later if Romney is the nominee.

“They need to vet one another,” Palin said of the Republicans hoping to get the nomination. “We’re not going to get the lamestream media to help vetting on the other side of the ticket, so we’ll vet within our own party and we’ll allow that uh… most prepared candidate to rise to the top.”

Palin (who is on record as a tax cheat) went on to criticize Romney for not releasing his tax returns. She who authorized the creation of secret email accounts and withheld tens of thousands of state emails from public record, and who refused to release her own medical records during the 2008 campaign, also took Romney to task for not making his records transparent to the public.

The new convert to vetting within her own party received virtually no vetting herself in advance of the 2008 presidential race, as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee. She was first formally notified that she was under serious consideration for the position, and received her first request for basic information about herself, on Sunday, August 24, 2008 – four days before she was announced.

Three days later, Palin was flown from Alaska to Flagstaff Arizona, arriving around 10:00pm, after which she was interviewed over the phone by Arthur B. Culvahouse, Jr. who ran McCain’s “vetting team.” Apparently, by that point in the campaign he was all “vetted out,” because Palin was offered the job the following morning. (My emphasis added below for purposes of irony)

More startling, as of 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 26, nobody in the McCain camp had seen Sarah’s financial disclosures, tax records, or the formal lengthy questionnaire delving into her background. At that time, Sarah had not yet finished preparing them.

Culvahouse, only a day or two from having Sarah offered the job as running mate, seemed nonplussed and asked for the tax returns only “if possible.” As late as 9:30 p.m. Arizona time that same Tuesday, at least some of the financial documents were still being assembled by Todd with the assistance of Kris Perry. Not that Culvahouse seemed particularly concerned. He indicated to Sarah he did not intend to begin sifting through these materials until the next day anyway, which happened to be the same Wednesday Sarah arrived for her face-to-face with McCain. The process was: 1) review Sarah’s file for the first time on Wednesday 2) interview her late that night, and 3) based on that, it’s welcome-aboard the Maverick Express on Thursday, August 28, at around 11:00 a.m. [from Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin - A Memoir of Our Tumultuous Years]

In 2009, Culvahouse proudly declared that “me and two of my most cynical partners interviewed (Palin) and came away impressed.” On Monday, September 1, two days after the announcement, McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin said that Palin “was completely vetted by the campaign” before she was chosen.  Apparently, Republicans are not only easily impressed, but also not that hung up with the actual qualifications of candidates – but one look at any of the GOP debates thus far will tell you that.

So, by all means everyone, grab some popcorn, grab a seat next to Sarah, and enjoy the elephant on elephant pile-on. It’s their duty, after all, to give each other a good pounding so they can send their best and brightest limping bloodied elephant into the real fight in November.

After a not long enough silence following his October sentencing when he pleaded guilty to a bribery related felony, former state representative Vic Kohring has spoken out. Kohring recounts his tales of woe in a Wasilla Alaska bimonthly arts newspaper (page 21). I’m not sure if Vic’s middle name is Tim, but to listen to him tell it, it ought to be.

In Alaska, the name Vic Kohring has become synonymous with the infamous cash-for-votes Corrupt Bastards Club. Kohring and a host of other legislators were netted in a massive FBI investigation of the Alaska legislature and oil service company top brass. In October, the last of the crew, former Speaker of the House Pete Kott, and former Wasilla State Representative Vic Kohring were sentenced, putting the political nightmare to bed.

“With these two convictions and the sentences today, this brings to an end the largest and most successful corruption investigation ever in Alaska,” U.S. Attorney Karen Loeffler said after former Reps. Pete Kott and Vic Kohring were sentenced Friday morning. “Six legislators who were sitting at the time (of the investigation) were convicted of corruption charges, five of those were felonies, one was the misdemeanor. That’s 10 percent of the Alaska Legislature.”

Alaskans were left slack-jawed not only at the rampant corruption of their “public servants,” but at how cheaply they had been bought.  A few hundred to a few thousand dollars was enough to buy influence from many of the fine folks in Juneau.

Before we delve into the morass of self-pity and melodramatic cluelessness that is Vic Kohring’s column in Make-A-Scene The People’s Paper, here’s the classic FBI video of Vic taking cash from Bill Allen, and talking about vote influencing, filmed by hidden camera in room 604 of the Baranof Hotel in Juneau.

You may recall that back in 2008 before he was sent off to prison, and despite the above videotaped evidence of him taking cash from Bill Allen, Kohring said he’d been railroaded and framed and that his conscience was “absolutely clear.” Then he inexplicably stood by the side of the Glen Highway (before his ignominious departure to the pokey) handing out cookies to passing motorists underneath a giant sign with his name, and “THANKS ALASKA” in big orange letters. Birds were flipped.

After successfully winning the right to a new trial, he was now seemingly ready to take responsibility and admit guilt on one federal conspiracy charge.

[Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin] Feldis told the judge, it started at a meal at the Island Pub in Juneau on Feb. 23, 2006, when Allen gave him $1,000 in cash.

“Mr. Kohring accepted that money. Mr. Kohring knew that Mr. Allen was intending to influence his votes. Mr. Kohring took the money knowing why Mr. Allen was giving it to him — he knowingly became part of a conspiracy to bribe elected officials,” Feldis said.

Kohring went on to ask Allen to pay off the $17,000 debt on a credit card, and took other payments, Feldis said.

“Did you hear it all?” Beistline asked Kohring.

“Yes.”

“Is it true?” Beistline asked.

“Yes, it is,” Kohring said.

“Every bit of it?”

“Yes.”

Kohring proceeded to plead guilty.

“Kohring is now prepared to accept responsibility and move forward with his life,” the prosecution’s sentencing memo said.

Silly prosecutors.

Despite his clear admission of guilt, Kohring is actively professing his innocence, and seeking to mend his tattered reputation by telling his side of the story. And so he has done in the awkwardly titled, “Kohring’s Monthly Column, In His Own Words: THE RAID.”

In this story, our hero is driving down the Palmer-Wasilla Highway in August of 2006, when he “received a phone call on my cell from a man with a cold, soulless voice from the FBI.”

You can see where this is going… and it only gets worse.

Our friendly felon goes on to say that the soulless fed told him it would be in his “best interest” to return to his legislative office, located on the ironically named “Railroad Avenue.” Noting that while he was under no legal obligation to comply with the request, he was simply “curious and wondered what was going on.” Well, wouldn’t we all.

“I had nothing to hide so I returned only to receive a load of lies from men with protruding guns at their hips, a pattern that would continue for the next five years.”

Thus begins Kohring’s disparaging and obsessive commentary about federal agents carrying guns. One would think that any Republican representative from Wasilla (where you can carry an open or concealed gun as long as you can legally own it) would certainly be used to less responsible people than FBI agents openly carrying firearms. But apparently, it offended the delicate sensibilities of our fair legislator who clutches his pearls and disparages the fact that FBI agents have guns no less than seven times in his column. The FBI agents at the office led Kohring to muse, “One would think a major crime was taking place with all that presence.” One hesitates to ruin the mood and remind Mr. Kohring that 10% of the legislature and four others ended up convicted, in what is widely regarded as the biggest political corruption bust (aka “major crime”) in the state’s history.

The column goes on to gasp about “splenetic faced” agents (that’s bad-tempered for those of you without a thesaurus handy like Mr. Kohring) going through his files “without his permission” and using rubber gloves, dismantling his office, and locking doors. “It began to look like a raid,” he astutely observed.

“As the FBI men rummaged through my files, they took off their coats to reveal handguns on their hips which, they made sure I would see over and over as they moved around my little office…” And then more about an officer with a “big gun on hip.” (At this point, I’ll save you all from worrying yourselves to death. No, Vic Kohring does not get gunned down in cold blood in his office by federal agents who’ve grown too big for their breeches.)

A tally of the feds’ alleged lies ensues – 1) They said he was a witness, but he was really a suspect. 2) They said they wouldn’t go to the press, but they did. 3) They didn’t tell him he was being detained, but he was. 4) They denied alleged lies 1, 2 and 3 in court.

Those scheming federal agents. But the worst atrocities were yet to come. Kohring was shocked, SHOCKED, to find out that the questions that the FBI was asking him… they already knew the answers to. (!!!)

“…I realized the FBI had been conning me from the beginning. a) They had knowledge of every question asked of me. Not until later did I discover their deceit. The government knew all along that [VECO Chairman Bill] Allen had been my friend, that he had given me some money for my step-daughter as a gift. b) They were trying to catch me in some contradiction. It turns out their sole purpose was to attempt to trick me into giving inconsistent answers so they could charge me with making false statements.”

Share the horror. Federal investigators, already knowing the answers, asked Kohring questions about his friendship with a confessed criminal who had bribed legislators, and about Kohring taking cash money from him, all in an attempt to see if he gave the right answers consistently. I don’t know where this country went wrong, but when we have to resort to standard law enforcement interrogation tactics, the system is broken my friends. Broken.

Kohring also addresses the existence of the videotape you watched above. Ready?

“The government later attempted to make a case out of a dark, grainy, black and white FBI video showing Allen giving me $100 for my step-daughter for an Easter egg hunt, which was blown way out of proportion by a delighted media.”

Yes, they literally tried to make a federal case out of it. Which they did. And he plead guilty. And served time in prison.  But perhaps with a nice bright, high-definition, color film we’d have realized that what we THOUGHT was cash changing hands and promises of influence peddling was just really a sweet innocent Easter gift for a step-daughter between good friends who never hang out together socially.

The final, terrible and heartbreaking conclusion regarding federal agents (other than their gun-totin’ ways) in this tale of persecution and victimhood is this, sayeth Corrupt Bastard Vic Kohring:

“They lie, cheat, they create their own values, anything to get a conviction.” They acted as if they were “honest, halo-wearing guys with honorable intentions.”

After his jail time, Kohring will continue to serve out the rest of his 18 months of supervised release filling us in on the egregious behavior of those who brought him to justice and assuring us that he did nothing wrong, which means he was either lying in court, or he’s lying now. One might even say that he was acting like an honest, halo-wearing guy with honorable intentions. He promises us more to come soon.

[Photo of Vic Kohring leaving the Federal Building after his sentencing]

Like many of his compatriots, Newt Gingrich has gotten himself in hot water about comments regarding the African American community.

At a recent town hall event (in New Hampshire), Gingrich said that if invited, he would love to speak at the annual NAACP convention “about why the African-American community should demand pay checks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

The generalization of the African-American community being synonymous with entitlement programs (like Santorum’s recent gaffe) didn’t sit well with some. At another town hall meeting, Gingrich was confronted by one such disgruntled man.

“My point is, about a week ago — some time ago — you mentioned that black people should be able to earn a paycheck, not be on welfare, implying that black people in general are on welfare,” said Lamothe. “And I really took exception to that because it demeans my accomplishments, my hard work, because I have worked all my life. I have never been on welfare. You know about history. You know that back in the 1930s, Hitler started talking in Germany about a Jewish problem. My question to you is, do you think that blacks represent an American problem, and if you don’t think that, will you stop using blacks in general as a stepping stone or a punching bag?”

Newt had himself a problem. Since he’d used the term African-American, he couldn’t very well employ the Santorum Maneuver and blame food stamp usage on “blah people.” And the public might not believe he’d actually said, “afaganaamaah” people.  Time for some quick thinking, and blame.

A small flickering bulb goes off over Newt’s head. He’s got it! In an impressive teflon half-wit ninja move, he first blames the DNC for taking his comment “totally out of context.” Then, he goes on to explain what really happened, while he himself gets “irritated” and tells the African American community they should be grateful to him.

“I didn’t say what you just said,” he said. “Let me be very clear, because this is something that makes me, quite frankly, very irritated. … What I said was, there’s a real problem in America because you have a president who’s put more people on food stamps — people, I didn’t say any ethnic group, people — than any other president in history. … And I said I would be willing to go to the NAACP annual convention — which most Republicans are not willing to do — and I’d be willing to talk about the importance of food stamps versus paychecks.”

Ahhh. So it was “people.” Just “people.” Any sort of people who happened to be attending the NAACP annual convention. If you, dear reader,  just want to assume that he’s talking about black people, then that’s on you.

“Now I would have thought there would have been a positive response, saying, ‘Gosh, here’s a Republican who cares enough that he’s willing to go and talk to one of the most left-wing organizations in America about how to help the people they represent.”

Let’s face it. Most Republicans wouldn’t be caught dead in that place with those people. And here he is, not only willing to walk through the door, but to lecture the people there who might just happen to be black, about how to get themselves collectively off of food stamps. Let’s show a little humility and gratitude, shall we?  Frankly, Newt is just a pretty irritated by your attitude, people.

The other day, presidential hopeful Rick Santorum was quoted singling out black people for entitlement reform by saying to an Iowa audience, “I dont want to make black people’s lives better by giving them someone else’s money.”

His point was about putting people to work, rather than welfare, but the racial characterization of the problem was telling, and caused some blowback for the former Senator from Pennsylvania. It was sort of refreshing. We thought all he ever thought about was sex. He’s broadened his scope to minorities causing the financial decay and lack of work ethic in the nation. Nice change of pace.

It turns out that the Santorum campaign felt the wrath of the non-minorityphobes out there, to the point where the candidate has had to do a little pr work. A humble apology perhaps? No. An “everyone makes mistakes” confession? No. A teachable moment about unintentional racial bias? No, no, no.

He preferred that old classic – denial.

He never said it. Nope. Don’t believe you’re lyin’ ears. It was all a figment of your imagination.

Santorum appeared with Bill O’Reilly to explain the terrible mistake that everyone else made. O’Reilly asked Santorum, due to the fact that most welfare recipients are white, did he feel that the remarks would hurt him.

Santorum – I looked at that, and I didn’t say that. If you look at it, what I… what I started to say is a word and then sorta changed, and then sort of “bllluuuuhhhh” came out, and people said I said “black.” I didn’t. No one in that audience, and I talked to a lot of people and I’ve talked to reporters and this was…”

O’Reilly – We looked at it. It was a little blurry

Santorum – I looked at it very closely. It is. I’m gonna tell you, I don’t use… I don’t… I … First off, I don’t use the term black very often. I use the term African-American more than I use black…”

Santorum then went on to talk about how proud he was of his record, and support of historically bllluuuuhhh colleges.

It’s a good thing that Santorum forensically examined the video, so he could determine from that what he may or may not have said. And he was also able to back up his findings by asking members of the audience what THEY thought he might not have said.

Fortunately, with the miracles of modern technology, you can decide for yourself.

HERE is a link to a better version of the video clip of Santorum singling out bllluuuhhh people for entitlement reform. Pay close attention to the “blurriness.” You’ll need to focus. A nice cup of bllluuuhhh coffee might be in order.

It kind of sounded more like blaaaahh, or maybe blaaaigh, or…

After you figure out that one, you can enjoy today’s Santorum news where he compares gay marriage to polygamy.

[Former candidate Michele Bachmann, with her husband Marcus (in pink shirt and tie) says farewell to the race. Photo by Chris Carlson/AP]

Let’s do a quick Countdown of Crazy, and touch base with the best of the best of the Republican party and what they have to offer us in country leading potential.

6) Michele Bachmann

Rumors began last night that Michele Bachmann was going to drop out of the race for the GOP’s presidential nomination. Then she told a close group of friends she’d be staying in, and that she was the one true conservative who could take on Baraaack Obaaama.  But now, in the cold clear light of the Iowa morning sun, she has rethought her position again, and has decided to bow out of the race, after what was ostensibly a last-place finish.

But even “the best campaigner in the family” was slacking on the job yesterday. Marcus Bachmann was apparently off buying doggie sunglasses for the family dog Boomer, which the candidate revealed in a speech for no particular reason. Note Marcus Bachmann’s classic reaction to his wife’s revelation below.

She then went on to thank her children, consulting a list so she could remember them all.

This morning, our favorite crazy-eyed Sarah substitute threw in the towel.

“Last night the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice and so I have decided to stand aside,” she said at a press conference this morning in Des Moines. “I believe if we are going to repeal Obamacare, turn our country around and take back our country we must do so united and I believe we must rally around the person our country, our party and our people chooses to be that standard bearer.”

Although she had her brief time on top, placing first in an Iowa GOP poll last summer, the more she spoke, the lower her numbers went. With little support or money left, her time was up and the crazy train made its last stop, in Des Moines.

5) Rick Perry

“Governor Good Hair” Perry was also widely rumored to be dropping out of the race. The following was even tweeted by one of his staffers:

 @Ssmith06: 25 degrees in Aiken, South Carolina. My boss just quit his Presidential campaign and bars close in 30 minutes. Shit.

Can’t take that back, red-faced staffer.

It turns out that rumors of the candidate’s demise were exaggerated, and Perry will stay in the race – at least until South Carolina. He himself tweeted his intent, along with a picture of himself running by a lake, Palin-style,  and giving a thumbs up.

@GovernorPerry: And the next leg of the marathon is the Palmetto State…Here we come South Carolina!!!

With three exclamation points, who knows what could happen!?! Next step, The White House!!!  But first, he’ll be taking a few days to go home “back to the ranch” in Texas, as it were, to spend some time in prayer and contemplation!!!

4) Newt Gingrich

What happens when you put a Newt in the corner and poke it with a little stick? It gets angry, that’s what. And you wouldn’t like it when it’s angry… Heck, you don’t even like it when it’s not angry. Then, it’s just being a condescending, mean-spirited, blowhard, that’s completely out of touch with human beings.

That’s our #4 boy, and he doesn’t much care for Mitt Romney (spoiler alert!) the winner last night. He spent a good deal of time after the caucus praising people who weren’t mean to him, and shooting poison arrows at a certain someone who had something to do with a certain organization who ran certain negative ads.

Romney’s super PAC — like those informally affiliated with Rick Perry, Barack Obama and others — is staffed by friends and former staffers. Election rules permit these super PACs to raise unlimited amounts from the superrich and — thanks to the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United – corporations. The candidates may help raise money for these super PACs. Super PACs must reveal their donors on a monthly or quarterly basis, though they accept donations from nonprofit organizations that are not required to reveal their donors (and argue the practice is legal). The main limit on super PAC activity is that they may not coordinate their activities with the candidates or their campaigns. But this is a more formal than consequential restriction, since the super PACs are staffed by those who know well what the campaigns want.

He had called Mitt Romney a “liar” saying he knew more about the spending of the SuperPAC Restore Our Future and their negative ads than he let on.

Who’d a thunk that one of the first to feel the nasty teeth of the Citizens United ruling would be the likes of Newt Gingrich. And this is nothing compared to what we can expect in the general election. Have the Tums handy for the next ten months, and get ready for some down and dirty playground ass-kicking behind the monkey bars at 3:30.

3) Ron Paul

Scoring more than half of the vote in the 18-24 age group, and 43% of independent voters, there’s no doubt that our goofy, delusional uncle had a good night. He emerged, for Iowans as the non-religious wingnut alternative to Mitt Romney. His supporters and staff are mighty proud.

Paul’s campaign manager crowed:

“There were three tickets out of Iowa, and Ron Paul earned one of them. One of the three tickets, the one belonging to Rick Santorum, is a dead-end due to Santorum’s weak fundraising and lack of national campaign organization.

“This is now a two way race between establishment candidate Mitt Romney and the candidate for real change, Ron Paul.”

But Paul still comes in behind Newt Gingrich in national polls. Perhaps Paul’s rapid supporters, and financial assistance to those same SuperPAC ads that Romney helped to fund will take care of that.  Shhhhh… Don’t anger the newt!

2) Rick Santorum

Sex-obsessed loathsome guy came in second, only eight votes behind. How about that. It’s as though everyone who hates Mitt Romney just let someone pick the name of one of the other candidates out of a hat and everyone flocked to support them, until they learned about them, or until they said something about Libya (the continent where Republican candidates go to die). Then a new name was chosen, and the process was repeated. Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich… and now Santorum. His moment in the sun happened to come at the right time.

Either that or the country really is ready for a man who would annul all same-sex marriages, outlaw abortion, ban contraception, let insurance companies reject you for pre-existing conditions, and get rid of food stamps. What. People are obese – they don’t need food stamps! And while we’re at it, we need to do something about all those disruptive gay soldiers who shouldn’t be allowed to protect our freedom in close quarters.

And the winner is…

1) Mitt Romney

Nobody likes him. He won anyway.

Miscellaneous 

And how could we forget ol’ what’s their names?

Jon Huntsman
Being sane and all, he was all but completely ignored in Iowa. Understanding his devastating liability, he ignored them too – mutual snubbing. Next stop, New Hampshire.

Herman Cain
The Herminator got an impressive 58 votes. Yes, that’s right. Fifty-eight Iowans, knowing their guy was out of the race and why, were so committed to the world’s most infamous gropey pizza man, and so enamored by his “likability” that they left their homes in the cold to write in his name. Kind of makes you feel all warm and gooey, in a horrified, “are you kidding me” sort of way.

Other
There’s our girl! We knew she’d pop up eventually. She got lumped in with Johnson and Roemer whom nobody has ever actually seen. But, even if every single one of the 117 other votes went for you-know-who, there’s the maximum ground-shattering force of the “Palin Earthquake.” Sorry, Iowans. That was no earthquake – just a big truck full of crazy rumbling by on the street on its way to nowhere.

And what does all this mean? How important are the Iowa caucuses, really?

Just ask last year’s winner – President Huckabee.