Sarah Palin's Spite Comes Home to Roost in Alaska

The not too commonsense conservative Sarah Palin endorsed the not too bright Bill Walker in this past 2014 Alaska Gubernatorial election.

In a close race, and with the help of Democrats, the not too bright Bill Walker won by a narrow margin.

What I fount interesting with Palin's endorsement was while the not too commonsense conservative Sarah Palin was attacking Obama on Obamacare, her choice for Alaska governor Bill Walker was embracing the medicaid expansion found in Obamacare.

The medicaid expansion that the Susan B Anthony List fought diligently against.

• Medicaid Expansion – The Affordable Care Act incentivizes states to expand their Medicaid programs for the poor by raising the eligibility limits for lower-income residents based on family size and structure. 
  
  • Slightly more than half of the states have chosen to expand their Medicaid rolls and roughly two thirds of these states pay for elective abortions for their Medicaid populations.  As a result, millions of uninsured women in these states will become eligible for state tax-paid abortions as a result of Obamacare. 
  • These state tax funds will be paid directly to providers filing claims and not merely to insurance companies providing the coverage. 
   

Everyone who was paying attention to the candidates, knew Walker was going to do this and when Walker came out with the expansion, Planned Parenthood let everyone know in a press release.

So there you have it - Palin endorsed a candidate that supported expanding Obamacare.

This comes as no surprise as she continued to support candidates like John McCain and her endorsement of Walker was done out of spite because Parnell smartly eliminated Palin's ACES with SB21.

The irony is Palin gets hit twice by Walker. He's keeping SB21 because it is working and bringing in more revenue than ACES did at the current price of oil and he has sided with a provision in Obamacare.

A provision that the Susan B Anthony List fought against.

One has to ask if Palin will be invited to speak at a breakfast with the group and explain her endorsement of Walker while her spite comes home to roost in Alaska.

Sarah Palin in Newsweek Says She Can: Zogby Poll Says She Can’t

I will keep this blog short: Sarah Palin supposedly stated in a Newsweek article she can beat Obama.

I went to her diehard supporters on Conservatives4Palin to get their version on the Newsweek story.

Then I went to see how they viewed Zogby and I found Romney standing still. And while the folks at Conservatves4Palin were citing Zogby to attack Romney, I found the Boston Herald citing Zogby according to C4P as being hilarious because the Herald was desperate.

So when Zogby said Sarah Palin was the person of the year, what did the folks at Palin-walks-on-water say?

Was citing Zogby when it had good news about Palin an act of desperation when the Newsmax-Zogby poll had Palin the leading contender in the GOP2012 race?

Sorry guys and gals at Conservatives4Palin and PalinTV, you don’t get to pick and choose when Zogby is good and bad and cite Hot Air polls.

For the time being, Sarah Palin is not doing well with her negatives.

Monday Open Thread | Conservatives4Palin

conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/monday-open-thread-26.html

May 23, 2011 – Zogby propping up the Moron Herman Cain. Herman Cain is alway so freaking ...... 2011 Conservatives4Palin. Follow us on twitter @C4Palin ...

You have to take the good and bad so Zogby has Palin losing against Obama.

Match-Ups With Barack Obama

If the election for President were held today and the candidates were Democrat Barack Obama and each of the following Republicans, for whom would you vote?

GOP Candidate	Obama	Opponent	Someone else	Not Sure
Chris Christie	41%	45%	6%	8%
Mitt Romney	42%	43%	12%	3%
Rick Perry	42%	43%	8%	7%
Tim Pawlenty	41%	41%	11%	8%
Herman Cain	42%	42%	11%	6%
Ron Paul	40%	40%	14%	6%
Michele Bachmann	44%	42%	9%	6%
Rick Santorum	44%	39%	12%	6%
Jon Huntsman Jr.	39%	31%	18%	12%
Sarah Palin	47%	37%	13%	3%
Newt Gingrich	45%	33%	19%	4%

And then you have Zogby stating that majority wants cuts instead of new taxes.

Thank You Sarah Palin: The Undefeated; And Some Republicans and Alaska Democrats

I would like to take this time and thank Sarah Palin; The Undefeated and some Alaska Republicans and all of the Alaska Democrats in the Alaska legislature.

The legislation called ACES is having a booming effect on the business climate in Alaska and the United States.

Alaska has moved from 50^th (among the 57 Obama United States) to 49^th when it comes to states that promote a healthy business climate.

I guess you could attribute the rise to 49th with Sarah Palin leaving and Sean Parnell taking over, but he still has to deal with a bunch of idiots in the legislature.

Some may point to Alaska’s economy is 3^rd but that is because the government spends billions of dollars to sustain it.

Think of it like Obama’s federal stimulus plan on steroids.

And what about the workforce?

It is ranked 48^th and that hire Alaskan plan a.k.a Project Labor Agreement Palin and her union brothers and sisters partied over, it was about bringing up union workers from the Lower 48 because there is not enough skilled labor in Alaska.

So while the oil companies are drilling a gazillion wells in North Dakota, Texas and every other place except Alaska, I finally figured out what Sarah Palin The Undefeated meant when she said Drill Baby Drill and Drill Here, Drill Now.

When she secretly had her eye on the V.P. slot, she had it all planned out; help Mr. Anti-ANWR McCain become president and come up with some asinine tax plan that would drive oil development to other parts of the world.

And one more thing: screw those American “Big Oil” companies in Alaska - while nationalized “Big Oil” companies like Russia’s Gazprom chants Drill Cuba Drill and China’s Sinopec chants Drill Canada Drill , they both snicker at American “Big Oil” 6.2% profits.

I can imagine old Vladimir Putin standing at the shore of Big Diomede waving to Sarah Palin on Little Diomede, while Putin’s oligarch buddies at Gazprom nudge each other as they laugh at how they sand-bagged Wally Hickel when he went to visit Russia and Hickel tried to tell the Russians how to develop their resources.

Alaska was a model don’t you know…

Since Gazprom is a nationalized company, the Russian government can tax the hell out of Gazprom and pass the tax increase on to the market or consumers in the U.K..

And the tax increases, they are usually done through promises made during an upcoming election:

Russia relies on oil and gas for most of its budget revenue. “First of all, in Russia if we want to increase taxes, we are thinking about all and gas business,” Konstantin Simonov, the General Director of the National Energy Security Fund in Moscow, told New Europe on 15 June.

Gas production in Russia is subject to much lower rates of extraction tax than crude oil production. “Taxes on oil companies are higher than gas companies and oil companies are usually asking for decreasing of taxes because, according to their position, there is no money for new investment. That is why in this case Minister of Finance is proposing idea to think of gas companies,” Simonov said.

Simonov said that Kudrin expects an increase in state expenditures due to the upcoming elections and wants to increase taxes because there is not enough money in the state budget. The proposals to increase gas taxes are still under discussion. So far, Gazprom, with the support of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has been able to avoid any increases in the rate between 2006 and 2010. But now, due to the upcoming elections, Putin may have no choice but agree to raise mining taxes on the gas industry, Simonov said.

Gazprom has warned that an increase in its tax burden would discourage new output. Gazprom, which has seen a decline in Brownfield production, has said that there has been no serious investment in Greenfields for a long time. The Russian company needs cash to develop its Bovanenkovo field, to construct a pipeline system from Bovanenkovo to Ukhta, and to develop other Yamal projects. Next year, Gazprom plans to increase its investment program. The annual shareholder meeting of Gazprom will be on 30 June. Kudrin said that the Finance Ministry doesn’t plan to raise next year’s rates for independent gas producers, such as OAO Novatek. Next year, Novatek and other independent producers will pay 251 rubles (€6.28) per 1000 cubic meters and only slightly more, 265 rubles, (€6.63) in 2013.

It seems Mr. Putin wants another try at being at the forefront instead of the guy who pulls Medvedev’s strings.

Once he gets elected, he will have to lower the rates.

That is because the free-market principles dictate this; principles that Palin likes to point to but are contrary to her actions taken when she took the helm of Alaska’s economy and implemented and signed ACES.

But there was an election and bad advice was followed.

Now the brilliant bunch in the Alaska legislature want to spend over $8 billion on a “bullet” pipeline to bring natural gas to a state where it was second to Puerto Rico with the highest insured unemployment rate; it spends over $10 billion on a state budget with a population of 698,473 and ignores the fact that coal methane gas can be extracted from coal deposits and be brought to market at the fraction of the cost.

Moreover, what about Alaska’s unemployment? It seems Russia and Alaska have a lot in common when it comes to taxing oil companies and government spending to keep unemployment figures from tanking.

May figures – seasonally adjusted 7.4%

Alaska’s seasonally adjusted unemployment rate for May was 7.4 percent, up slightly from April’s unchanged rate of 7.3%. the comparable national rate in May was 9.1 percent, up from the revised rate of 9.0 percent in April.

The trend in unemployment has been up since April and that is an Obama trend that is directly related to a tax policy set by Palin and the Alaska legislature.

Like I said before: ACES would drive Alaska to become a Really Big Detroit and it is starting.

So I would like to say Thanks Sarah Palin, I hope you enjoy your undefeated status.

BTW, Putin is undefeated too.

How Will Sarah Palin’s Actions on Same Sex Benefits Play in Iowa?

The whoopla over the docu-drama The Undefeated continues and with the release of the movie, there is talk that Sarah Palin is getting in the presidential race. And it looks like Iowa is the focus in the speculation.

But when you consider Iowan’s had seen their state supreme court over-turn a law banning same-sex marriage in 2009 and having to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, how will social conservatives in Iowa feel about Sarah Palin’s handling of same-sex benefits?

Respondents described as ‘very conservative’ The biggest minefield among the 10 issues is civil unions. Fifty-eight percent would outright reject a candidate who favors them. Thirteen percent would consider a candidate who supports civil unions, and 27 percent say it’s no real problem. Two percent aren’t sure.

(…)

Iowans have been deeply divided over rights for same-sex couples since a unanimous 2009 Iowa Supreme Court decision legalized same-sex marriage.

Evangelical Christians last year led a successful campaign to oust the three justices who participated in the ruling who were up for a retention vote last fall. This year, a small group of Republicans in the Iowa House wanted to impeach the remaining four justices who handed down the decision, but didn’t have enough support from their fellow representatives. Republican legislators continue to seek a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

For Romney supporters, civil unions are far less of a deal-killer (35 percent) than for supporters of Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman (80 percent).

Here in Alaska, we know what effect a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage can have.

In a civil lawsuit against the Municipality of Anchorage, the Alaska Supreme Court stated the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, justified unmarried same-sex couples getting benefits from public employers:

ANCHORAGE (AP) — The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a victory for gay rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

(…)

But Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski was "outraged" by the ruling and directed the attorney general's office to determine the best way to overturn it, said his spokeswoman, Becky Hultberg.

The high court said the disputed benefits plans will stand until a remedy is reached in future court hearings. Nine gay or lesbian government workers and their partners in 2002 joined the Alaska American Civil Liberties Union in appealing the lower court ruling.

The case stems from a 1999 lawsuit filed against the state and the Municipality of Anchorage after voters passed a constitutional amendment blocking state recognition of gay marriage.

In the 2001 Superior Court ruling overturned Friday, Judge Stephanie Joannides said the state and city did not have to extend benefits to same-sex couples, equating them with unmarried heterosexual couples who also are not eligible. The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot.

In response to the Alaska Supreme Court, the Alaska Legislature crafted a bill that would have banned benefits going to same-sex couples but the bill was vetoed by Governor Palin:

The Legislature passed a bill in a November special session that would have barred the commissioner of administration from taking action on the new benefits plan.

Rep. John Coghill, R-North Pole, sponsored the bill. In a phone interview Thursday, he said Palin faced a constitutional dilemma but that he’s still disappointed by her veto.

“I would have like to have seen her stand up to the courts,” Coghill said.

The statement from the Palin administration said the veto doesn’t mean Palin suddenly agrees with the Supreme Court, which ruled that the state has to offer the benefits starting Jan. 1.

“It is the Governor’s intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue,” the statement said.

Coghill said he’s interested in a new plan that would allow state employees to designate one person -- maybe a same-sex partner, but also possibly a family member or roommate -- who would be eligible for state-paid benefits. But the employee would have to pay to add that person to their benefits.

On Dec. 20, Palin signed a bill that calls for the public to vote on whether or not there should be a constitutional amendment denying benefits to same-sex couples.

The constitutional amendment denying same-sex benefits was an issue that the candidates were asked about in a voter's guide.

In answers to the question, Sarah Palin answered yes to a constitutional ban– in the same voter guide, I qualified my answer to the same question by pointing to the 8^th Circuit Court.

Because the lawsuit opened the federal claim door by including the United States Supreme Court Lawrence vs. Texas and Romer vs. Evans decisions in briefs, I indicated that the 8^th circuit had addressed the legal issues surrounding same sex issues and the Legislature was on sound legal ground to enact a law denying the benefits.

Arguably, Palin erroneously vetoed the law and as a result, the legislature could not test a faulty decision handed down by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Moreover, given Palin’s rationale behind her veto, the same rationale could have applied to her support of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex benefits.

Since the proposed constitutional amendment would go directly against the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling, Palin’s veto from a legal point, was illogical and poorly thought out.

And out of all of the legislative wrangling, an advisory vote was conducted in April 2007 and the vote supporting a constitutional amendment had a slight majority.

But with the help of Democrats like my opponent Mike Doogan, the constitutional amendment process died under the Palin administration.

Later when Palin became the V.P. nominee, news stories emerged stating she supported same-sex benefits. The stories were shot down by Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200808290025

SUMMARY: The Associated Press reported that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "opposes gay marriage -- constitutionally banned in Alaska before her time -- but exercised a veto that essentially granted benefits to gay state employees and their partners." However, the AP did not note that Palin stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she believed same-sex partners of public employees should receive benefits.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200809010004

SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Debra Saunders and CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck both falsely claimed that Gov. Sarah Palin supports benefits for same-sex partners of state employees. In fact, while Palin did veto a bill that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, she stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that the bill was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples. She has also reportedly said that she would support a ballot question banning benefits for same-sex couples.

The Media Matters stories jumped-the-gun because Palin in a debate with Biden stated that she would not support the same sex benefits if it brought the definition of marriage closer to include same sex marriage, but she did follow Biden’s lead when Biden stated:

Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

Palin:

But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.

But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.

(emphasis added)

Palin punted the legal issue surrounding same-sex benefits to the voters when she vetoed the law crafted by the legislature.

So how will Palin’s handling of the same-sex benefits issue be looked at by social conservatives in Iowa?

It remains to be seen if it becomes an issue.