Republican Convention 2008

The Sarah Palin Chronicles

|

The last time I remember writing something about John McCain's vice-presidential pick, she had just recorded some comradely greetings to the Alaskan Independence Party. For those of you who missed it the first time around, here she is again:
Palin doesn't actually endorse secession. Still, consorting with separatists is a welcome contrast with McCain's centralist "national greatness" conservatism. I have my policy differences with Palin, but her western, somewhat anti-statist, vaguely crunchy-con outlook is far preferable to her political partner's perspective. If the election pitted Palin against McCain, I know who I'd be rooting for.

Unfortunately, if Palin's foreign policy instincts differ substantially from McCain's militarism, she has kept those disagreements to herself. (Her kind words for Ron Paul did not, alas, include any comments on Iraq.) That's the sort of issue you can overlook when someone is a mayor or governor, but it's a bit more pressing when just one aneurysm-busting McCain tantrum might be enough to send her to the White House.

NEXT: Howell Gets Off Easy With $40,850 Fine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s rather suspicious that she voluntarily chose to live so close to Russia. Not many people do that. Is she a secret communist, possibly trained by the KGB to infiltrate the government?

    Putin, Palin? Notice the similarity?

  2. I’m going to enjoy watching the same right wingers that savaged Paul for his associations tie themselves in knots justifying Palin’s associations.

  3. but it’s a bit more pressing when just one aneurysm-busting McCain tantrum might be enough to send her to the White House

    Not really, because it cannot get worse in the event that McCain assumes room temp.

    Click my name to see Sarah bust a few shots off.

    Ahh, chicks and guns.

    Disclaimer: Chicks and guns is not my thing, but SOME guys get a little thrill from it.

  4. The Alaskan Independence Party platform, which seems cribbed from the Libertarian Party Platform:

    http://www.akip.org/platform.html

    Then there’s this, from the “Goals” section of their Web site (http://www.akip.org/goals.html):

    Goals

    Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.

    The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

    1) Remain a Territory.
    2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
    3) Accept Commonwealth status.
    4) Become a State.

    The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party’s founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

  5. I doubt that secession for Alaska would come out very well during a McCain administration, seeing that McCain has a chapter on Abraham Lincoln in his book *Great Americans Whose Asses I’d love to Kiss If the Grave-Desecration Laws Weren’t So Darn Strict.”

  6. It’s probably just as well Palin isn’t governor of, say, South Carolina – if she’d addressed a statehood independence party there, McCain would probably have had to hang her (not before the primary, of course).

  7. From what I understand, the AIP is more like a big tent rather than a united party. Some of their members want independence, others are not too particularly concerned about independence. If Mr. Walker is to correct, then Mrs. Palin is more of the latter.

    Sorry for my digression, but I always escapes me how could one reconcile less government intervention in the economy and some other aspects in life, and yet at the same time favor government intervention in social life (e.g.: passing legislation on marriage) and overseas. I understand the whole Burkean argument regarding society and its morals, but still, I would think mild skepticism about the state’s intervention in every aspects of the society (e.g.: economy, morality, etc)would be apparent.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.