What Was That About a Place in Hell?

At a campaign stop in California on Saturday, Sarah Palin told one of her cutesy folksy hockey mom stories about reading the quote of the day on her Starbucks mocha cup. The quote was from former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright.  “Now she said it, I didn’t,” quipped Palin with her finger in the air.  ” She said, ‘There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t support other women.'” In a bit of irony, the crowd was actually  booing Madeleine Albright, the first female Secretary of State, and had to stop so they could laugh and cheer at Palin’s “gotcha” about not supporting women. 

It turns out the actual quote was, “There’s a place in Hell reserved for women who don’t help other women.” Albright responded, saying she was “flattered” Palin chose “to cite me as a source of wisdom” but said the quote “had nothing to do with politics.”

“This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women.”

Palin told her cheering audience to watch and see how her comment is “turned into whatever it’ll be turned into tomorrow with the newspaper.”

Well, this isn’t a newspaper, but I’m going to turn it into this:

Hmmm….Governor Palin, you were saying something about a place in Hell?

Advertisement

Buy That Man a Beer. Keith Olbermann on Hockey Moms in Glass Houses.

I don’t know what I can possibly add to this, exept to say, “THANK you.” That felt good.

When Will Everyone Come to Their Senses?

When will everyone in the U.S. come to their senses about GWB? Looks like about 2011.

Graph from Gallup

The Truth About Palin and Darfur.

Sarah Palin talked big with claims of her administration’s leadership role in an attempt to divest Alaska holdings from Darfur. Sound too good to be true? Guess why. Here’s the real story from (D) Rep. Les Gara, who filed legislation cosponsored by (R) Rep. Bob Lynn to require Alaska to divest from companies supporting the genocide in Darfur.

Les didn’t even get to hear the last half hour of the VP debate, because as soon as Palin dropped her little bomb about Darfur and how she “called for” divestment as soon as she found out about it, his phone started ringing off the hook with people saying, “HUH?”.

Palin’s Debate Claim Not Accurate That She Opposed Darfur Investments When She First “Found Out” About Them

Documents Show Palin Administration Supported Investments in

Businesses Linked to Darfur Genocide Until March, 2008

“When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan, we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren’t doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur.”
—Sarah Palin, Oct. 2, 2008, VP Debate.

Anchorage, AK – During last week’s Vice Presidential debate, Governor Palin stated that once she “found out” that her state’s large investment funds held stock in companies linked to the Darfur genocide, she worked to divest from them, in a stand against Sudan’s brutal genocide. Dozens of other states have divested from companies linked to the government-sponsored genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region.The facts show the Governor did not in fact take a stand on this issue when she “found out” about it. A recently discovered 2006 letter, other documents, and records of legislative committee testimony show the Palin Administration opposed efforts by Alaska legislators to pass a Darfur divestment bill until near the end of the 2007-2008 legislative session.

These documents (linked below) show Governor Palin was asked by members of Congress to divest from Sudan’s genocide-related companies in November of 2006. Records show her Administration was asked again to divest through 2007, that this issue was discussed in Alaska’s media, and that her Administration opposed legislation to divest from these companies through February of 2008.

“The Administration’s opposition to our divestment legislation was one of the reasons we couldn’t get the bill passed. I do appreciate that they eventually dropped their opposition. But in fairness, they didn’t do anything to help when they found out about this problem,” said Alaska State Rep. Les Gara (D-Anch.), who filed legislation in 2007 with co-Sponsor Rep. Bob Lynn (R-Anch), to require Alaska to divest from companies implicated in the Darfur genocide.The following documents demonstrate the Palin Administration was asked to join the divestment effort in November of 2006, and opposed divestment efforts through February of 2008:

1. In November, 2006, members of Congress wrote personally to the Governor to ask that she join other states in divesting their assets from companies implicated by the human rights community in the Darfur genocide.

(Nov. 2006 Letter To Palin).

2. In 2007 the Alaska press started covering the public effort to get Alaska to divest from genocide-implicated companies doing business in Sudan.

(Dec, 2007 Alaska NBC News Story On divestment Effort).

3. In December 2007, members of the Save Darfur Coalition Met with the Governor’s office, without success, in an effort to gain support for divestment.

(Save Darfur Coalition Meeting With Governor’s Office, December, 2007).

(Bill Press release, January, 2008)

4. The Palin Administration testified in opposition to divestment from companies implicated in the Darfur genocide. On February 9, 2008, the Alaska Legislature’s House State Affairs Committee held its first hearing on Rep. Lynn & Gara’s HB 287. The Palin Administration and the Permanent Fund Corporation testified against the bill. Brian Andrews (since deceased), Deputy Commissioner of the State of Alaska, Department of Revenue, testified on behalf of the Palin Administration. This testimony helped kill this bill, with 4 members of the Governor’s Republican party stating their opposition to the bill (Reps. Bob Roses, Craig Johnson, Kyle Johansen and John Coghill). The bill never left this committee, and died when the legislative session ended on April 12, 2008. Deputy Commissioner Andrews testified at length against divestment from Sudan, and stated in part: “[T]he desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens’ financial security is not a good combination.”
(Feb 9, 2008 House State Affairs Committee testimony Minutes).

(Juneau Empire Press Coverage).

5. Through February and March, 2008, the Save Darfur Coalition and Rep. Gara kept working to change the Administration’s position. The former held a rally on the capitol steps. “I was pretty angry at how lightly the Permanent Fund and Administration took this issue, and began pushing for meetings to convince them that investing in genocide was wrong,” said Gara. Rep. Gara’s office held meetings with both the Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, Pat Galvin, and Permanent Fund Corporation Director Mike Burns. In late March of 2008 the Commissioner of Revenue and Governor agreed to change course and support the divestment effort. On April 1 Commissioner Galvin testified in favor of a companion Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Hollis French (D – Anch.). But with 12 days left in the legislation session at that point, the bill never made it to the Senate or House Floor for a vote, and House Bill 287 never made it out of the House State Affairs Committee.

Stevens Trial Steams On…and a New Blogger is There.

A new man has pinched his nose and jumped into the shark-infested waters of Alaska political blogging. I’d like to welcome Cliff Groh to the pool. Groh is in Washington D.C. now, blogging about the Ted Stevens trial. His history with Stevens is long, and his knowledge of Alaskan politics is extensive. He is working on a book about the current political corruption scandal uncovered by federal investigation. He understands the dynamics of corruption. He’s a straight shooter.

The name of his blog? Alaska Political Corruption. It’s not catchy or clever, but it gets the point across, and Groh is good at getting the point across. I’m adding it to my blogroll, and will be checking it throughout the trial. Here’s his assessment of the two legal teams.

Not counting the defendant himself, there were 12 people sitting at the defense table or at the bench behind at a hearing last week.

The prosecution also had approximately a dozen people at that hearing.

This massive investment on behalf of Ted Stevens is a far cry from what we saw in the three trials of Alaska state legislators occurring in Anchorage last year. In each of those public corruption cases tried in Alaska, the defendant was outgunned so badly it was embarrassing. It was like a freight train was roaring down the tracks on one man.

This case sets up very differently. With all of the resources expended on Stevens’ defense, this trial is more like two freight trains colliding—and it’s not clear which train will ultimately get the worse of it.

All this fine legal work for Ted Stevens doesn’t come cheap. It’s entirely possible that this defense is costing $175,000 per week during the trial, and that estimate could be substantially low.

$175,000 a week? You could buy a lot of sled dogs, fish sculptures, massage chairs, barbeque grills, generators and home renovations for that chunk of change!