Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
I didn't want this to get lost in different threads, and because another one of the allegations about Sarah Palin has been disproven, I thought to start this thread. Of course, I'm sure the Obama supporters here will reflexively criticize Palin for her husband's membership in AIP before 2002, but at least that illogical criticism won't rely on disinformation.
Quote:
Todd Palin, Longtime Former AIP Member
September 02, 2008 5:11 PM
Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time."
That said, Fenumiai says that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared.
So the facts are: Gov. Palin was not a member of this third-party ("Alaska First -- Alaska Always") that wants Alaskans to get a vote on whether or not the state can secede from the U.S. But her husband was a long-time member, and at least two AIP officials recall her attending the 1994 convention, though she says she did not attend.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
at least two AIP officials recall her attending the 1994 convention, though she says she did not attend. Of course she didn't attend. I tend to think the officials are telling the truth. You would notice a hottie at a political convention in Alaska, I would bet.
__________________ KOC Rules!
Yuma's Dad RIP 03/22/07
I still have a gut feeling Shaq will be better next season (2008/2009) after our docs have a full off season to work their magic on the Big Saguaro!
I really don't care about this story, but as we all know.. you don't have to be a registered member of a political party to participate, attend meetings, vote (with the exception of primaries in some states). This is nothing, other than they need to retract saying she was a member on paper.
Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time."
That said, Fenumiai says that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared.
So the facts are: Gov. Palin was not a member of this third-party ("Alaska First -- Alaska Always") that wants Alaskans to get a vote on whether or not the state can secede from the U.S. But her husband was a long-time member, and at least two AIP officials recall her attending the 1994 convention, though she says she did not attend.
- jpt
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
This muddies the water a bit, but like some said, not unregistering from the republican party does not mean she wasn't active in it.
It also in a sense broadens the scope, because it does implicate her husband. It's not a big widening, and we aren't voting for her husband, but it is now possible that both he and her were participating in it.
What's interesting is that he didn't register with them until 1995, yet it appears they or at least she attended a meeting in 1994? Wouldn't that mean, that regardless of being officially a member via voting rules or whatnot, that they could have been involved?
Which to me would show that it wasn't just a single time going to a meeting, or a brief lapse of judgment, if of course you feel that their position on secession wasn't good.
This retraction doesn't clear her of her connection, it just muddies the water until more investigation on the issue occurs. Which I have no doubt will occur. What the end result is I don't know. But I don't think it's a very good news story when they say, well we can't confirm her involvement, yet, but we did find out her husband was a part of it for a fact.
Kind of like saying well at least I didn't get killed when I totaled my car. Of course that is good, but there is the following point. The car is still totaled and you might wake up tomorrow with whiplash.
This muddies the water a bit, but like some said, not unregistering from the republican party does not mean she wasn't active in it.
It also in a sense broadens the scope, because it does implicate her husband. It's not a big widening, and we aren't voting for her husband, but it is now possible that both he and her were participating in it.
How does it muddy the water...a bit? The same guy who first reported it is now changing his tune. If the ABC Correspondent ( Jack Tapper) is backtracking from his original story then it seems he didn't have the accurate information to begin with.
Furthermore, here is an excerpt from the original article from Liac's thread:
Quote:
After refraining from commenting on the charge for a day, the McCain campaign on Tuesday asserted that Palin was never a member of the AIP.
But Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, tells ABC News that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.
What's interesting is that he didn't register with them until 1995, yet it appears they or at least she attended a meeting in 1994? Wouldn't that mean, that regardless of being officially a member via voting rules or whatnot, that they could have been involved?
Which to me would show that it wasn't just a single time going to a meeting, or a brief lapse of judgment, if of course you feel that their position on secession wasn't good.
This retraction doesn't clear her of her connection, it just muddies the water until more investigation on the issue occurs. Which I have no doubt will occur. What the end result is I don't know. But I don't think it's a very good news story when they say, well we can't confirm her involvement, yet, but we did find out her husband was a part of it for a fact.
Kind of like saying well at least I didn't get killed when I totaled my car. Of course that is good, but there is the following point. The car is still totaled and you might wake up tomorrow with whiplash.
Like I said, the same guy who wrote this is now admitting the record contradicts what the AIP are saying about Palin. That should make the water crystal clear...No?
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
There's a bit of a miscommunication here. You don't have to be publicly registered as a member of a party to participate in it's activities, especially in smaller parties (like in New York state, for example, where many are registered Democrats, but also take part in smaller political parties).
There is nothing to preclude Palin from being a registered Republican and partaking or being an active participant in the AIP.
Several members of the AIP have stated that they have seen her at the 1994 convention. Regardless of her public affiliation, it appears that she did attend political activities of the AIP.
[edit] -
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
Like I said, the same guy who wrote this is now admitting the record contradicts what the AIP are saying about Palin. That should make the water crystal clear...No?
No, he's under the same confusion. Membership does not equal public registration.
__________________ LET'S DO THIS!
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Last edited by lvgentleman; September 2nd, 2008 at 06:26 PM.
How does it muddy the water...a bit? The same guy who first reported it is now changing his tune. If the ABC Correspondent ( Jack Tapper) is backtracking from his original story then it seems he didn't have the accurate information to begin with.
Furthermore, here is an excerpt from the original article from Liac's thread:
Like I said, the same guy who wrote this is now admitting the record contradicts what the AIP are saying about Palin. That should make the water crystal clear...No?
No he isn't changing his tune entirely, he's backing off from his statement considered as fact that she was a member. Instead he is saying her HUSBAND definitely is.
That muddies the water because if her husband was involved, she still very much can be. They didn't say she never took part and we have confirmed that, and that she never attended a meeting, and never agreed with it's positions, etc. That would be crystal clear.
Because they backtracked on what they have proven, SO FAR, it does not clear her.
Again, when that clearing, SO FAR, still indicates her HUSBAND was part of it, then one can say, it's possible she WAS with him in regards to this.
But until the facts can be sorted out, the water is still muddy. It's not clear her involvement.
Again you can bet more will be looked into about this, but she isn't out of the woods yet.
Just because the McCain camp contradicts what is said, doesn't mean it's true.
The only thing I see, and maybe I see it wrong, is that they removed her name, but kept his.
Again that's like saying we can't prove Bonnie as yet, but we know Clyde was involved. Again the retraction pulls my stance back from 'she was', to 'she might have been but her husband definitely was'.
Man Kolo, you are shooting them down right and left. Looks like dems are throwing **** against the wall and seeing what sticks.
Really? Just what has Kolo "shot down"? That she held a card for a party that she attended meetings and her husband was an active member? Great, she didn't register. What else?
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
