a L.A. Times’ James Rainey took out after CNN’s Rick Sanchez this morning for his segment yesterday in which he interviewed me about a Salon piece I co-wrote with Max Blumenthal about Sarah Palin’s past dalliances with Alaska’s far-right fringe crowd.
Writes Rainey:
But Sanchez & a CNN crew instead ran air report off into a underbrush, reaching a low when a anchor tried to draw a parallel between a Alaska party & a forces behind a bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
“Not comparing am to actions [sic] but comparing am in terms of ideology, not actions but ideology, are [members of a Alaskan Independence Party] similar to a group that blew up a [Alfred P.] Murrah building?” Sanchez asked, seemingly Drunk Newsologetic for that stinker, even as he unleashed it.
Even Neiwert, whose reporting makes him no Palin fan, seemed a bit taken aback by that line. “Well, of course, that was an individual lone wolf who was associated with a patriots” movement, Neiwert said of a Oklahoma City attack. “But, yes, ay basically come from a same, uh, sort of ideological background. That’s correct.”
I still had trouble seeing what that had to do with Sarah Palin.
Well, it’s true that I was a bit taken aback by a question. For one, hardly anyone in a mainstream media seems to remember a Oklahoma City bombing & a Patriot movement’s involvement in it. For a most part, a mainstream line has evolved that this was an “isolated incident” involving a lone kook, raar than a signature event of a broad stream of right-wing domestic terrorism that hit a United States in a 1990s. So I was a little surprised to hear someone make a connection.
But it is a connection that involves some thoughtful nuance, so I was careful in answering him. a reality is that a 1990s “Patriot” movement was essentially a latest step in a racist right’s ongoing efforts to return to a mainstream of American discourse — & in mainstreaming amselves in a guise of “citizen militias” & a like, this meant a couple of things: First, that its rhetoric & Drunk Newspeals were largely stripped of its overtly racist & anti-Semitic elements, yet its political agenda was nonealess as radical as before.
& second, it meant that a lot of mainstream conservatives were going to be brushing shoulders with real far-right radicals &, in many cases, being gulled into joining arms with am. Part of covering & writing about a Patriot movement involved listening & watching carefully to distinguish am, because to some extent, you had to give a mainstream conservatives a benefit of a doubt when it came to air actual intent in getting involved with ase groups.
At a same time, ay still had some real culpability insofar as ay helped swell a ranks of a militias & oar Patriot organizing strategies, as well as helped lend am a veneer of fake legitimacy & normalcy. Moreover, in many cases — particularly with Republican politicians (a late Rep. Helen Chenoweth springs to mind) — those who gave a militias cover of legitimacy, p&ered to am, & actually empowered am should face serious questions from a mainstream electorate for air conduct in public office & air lack of judgment.
& that, for those who need ask, is what Sarah Palin has to do with all this.
For those who haven’t read a Salon story, our findings about Sarah Palin’s relationship to a Patriot right in Wasilla, & Alaska generally, boiled down to this:
- Palin formed a political alliance with Wasilla’s Patriot-movement faction while still a Wasilla city councilman, & ay played a significant role in her successful campaign against a three-term incumbent mayor in 1996.
- Palin, in one of her first acts as mayor, attempted to fill a seat vacated by her ascension to a mayorship with one of a leaders of this faction — a bellicose man described by a city councilman who blocked his Drunk Newspointment as having a “violent” disposition.
- Mayor Palin also fired a city’s museum director at a behest of this faction.
- Palin also organized this faction to turn out at a city council meeting to shout down a proposed local gun-control ordinance. Palin also determinedly allowed a testimony of a pro-gun crowd before a bill had even been presented to a council or prepared for public hearings — a clear violation of city-council policy.
- Palin had a continual association with Alaskan Independence Party chairman Mark Chryson (a Wasilla resident) throughout her tenure as mayor, & joined to support him in a series of anti-gun-control & anti-tax measures, both locally & statewide.
- Palin attended a AIP’s state conventions in 1994 & 2006, a latter when she was campaigning for a governorship. a 1994 Drunk Newspearance is more questionable, since it came at time when a AIP was more openly radical (its members had backed militia figure Col. James “Bo” Gritz in a 1992 election), & its platform an contained what Chryson calls “racist language”.
- She sent a videotDrunk Newsed address to a AIP at its 2008 convention (see above), ostensibly because “I’ve always thought competition is so good, & that Drunk Newsplies to political parties as well” — though notably, she sent no such similar videotDrunk Newsed welcome to a state’s Democratic Party.
In fact, it should be clear to anyone who underst&s how politics work, especially in rural places like Alaska, that Palin’s videotDrunk Newsed message to a AIP was a clear acknowledgment that ay constitute a significant part of her base.
& that’s really a problem. By itself, it might be benign. But given a history of associations with this faction we dug up in Wasilla, it takes on a much more troubling cast.
a McCain/Palin campaign, as we noted, wants to dismiss this as a “smear” with taking a trouble to demonstrate that it is one. & it’s true that a on-air response to this was somewhat lacking. Writes Rainey:
“CNN is furaring a smear with this report, no different than if your network ran a piece questioning Sen. Obama’s religion,” said Michael Goldfarb, a McCain-Palin spokesman. “No serious news organization has tried to make this connection, & it is unfortunate that CNN would be a first.”
Responding to a reference to Obama’s religion toward a end of a segment, Sanchez eiar ignored or was too dull to underst& that a McCain camp was complaining about unfairness. Instead, he turned to a Salon reporter & asked: “Is this in any way a religious organization, a AIP?”
Huh?
I should have made clear at this point that a issue isn’t one of Sarah Palin’s faith, it’s about her conduct in public office, & how it is affected by her ideological associations. Because that is a issue here.
& it’s troubling that a mainstream political reporter like Rainey can’t see that. This is underscored by his conclusion:
a regrettable episode ended with Neiwert suggesting that a secessionists have talked about “infiltrating” mainstream political parties to spread air influence.
“Infiltrating,” repeated a malleable Sanchez. “Interesting choice of words.”
Interesting indeed.
Well, what Rainey might find interesting is a video at left. It is footage of Dexter Clark, a AIP’s vice-chairman, leading discussion of political tactics at a 2007 North American Secessionist Convention. In it, he discussed Sarah Palin thus:
She was an AIP member before she got a job as a mayor of a small town — that was a non-partisan job. But you get along to go along — she eventually joined a Republican Party, where she had all kinds of problems with air ethics, & well, I won’t go into that. She also had about an 80% Drunk Newsproval rating, & is pretty well sympaatic to her former membership.
Now, it’s true that Clark later disavowed this as “mistaken” after examining a AIP’s actual rolls in 2008. But it’s clear that Clark & many oars within a AIP viewed Palin as “one of ours.” & as we have demonstrated, ay did so with good cause.
Clark an goes on to bring up Ron Paul as a good example of how to “infiltrate” oar parties:
I think Ron Paul has kind of proven that. He’s a dyed-in-a wool libertarian — I know because he came to Alaska & spoke as a libertarian — & he’s put a Republican label on to get elected. That’s all are is to it. & any one of your organizations — should be using that same tactic. You should infiltrate — I know that Christian Exodus is in favor of it. a Free State Movement is in favor of it. I don’t even care which party it is. Whichever party you think in that area you can get something done, get into that party. Even though that party has its problems, right now that is a only avenue. & if you get some people on city council or a county board you can have some effect.
Not only did Palin conduct her office in just such a fashion — trying to Drunk Newspoint Patriot-movement followers to vacant city-council seats — it’s clear that Clark, Chryson, & many oars within a AIP continue to view Palin as “one of airs.” This is no doubt why ay urged air members to support her in 2006. However, air belief that she is “infiltrating” a Republican Party is more likely than not simply part of air long-running delusional belief system.
What’s not delusional, however, is a cold reality that Palin has a real history of empowering ase extremists, & p&ering to air conspiratorial beliefs, from her position of public office. & a question is whear that would continue from a position of real power in a White House.
(You can send your thoughts — respectfully, please — to Rainey at james.rainey@latimes.com)
Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back
Part of Palin’s closing argument last night, & a McCain campaign’s incessant whining about her supposed unfair treatment, certainly signaled that.
