Palin to Begich: Resign and face Stevens again in a new election
posted at 8:40 pm on April 2, 2009 by Allahpundit
Not going to happen, but no harm in trying:
Palin’s call came after a reporter at the Fairbanks News Miner emailed her a copy of a statement by Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich calling for Begich to step down.
Asked for her response, Palin simply wrote back: “I absolutely agree.”
When the reporter wrote back to confirm that Palin meant she’d like to see Begich resign in order to hold a special election, the governor responded: “Yes.”
In an email to POLITICO, Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton confirmed the governor’s position. “She absolutely agrees that there should be a special election,” Stapleton wrote. “Stepping down to hold the special election would be the right thing to do.”
In the statement Palin was provided, Ruedrich said that “the only reason Mark Begich won the election in November is because a few thousand Alaskans thought that Sen. Ted Stevens was guilty of seven felonies.”
Begich says he’s not going anywhere. Er, didn’t Sarahcuda call on Stevens to step down after he was convicted last fall, before the appeals process had wound its way through the courts? Why is she willing to give him the benefit of the doubt now when she wasn’t before? And what exactly is the theory of unfairness here? As I recall, he was prosecuted by Bush’s DOJ, not a Democrat’s. Like the boss says, Stevens was a pork-guzzling corruptocrat even if his corruption didn’t rise to the level of a criminal offense. Aren’t we better off rid of him?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
It’s called politics, and from where I sit Palin knows how to play this game.
She didn’t throw this out there, but when asked if she agreed a special election was called for said it certainly is. Begich won due to a conviction, based on prosecutorial misconduct. I don’t think he’ll actually resign, but I think there’s beginning to be a strong current of public opinion flowing against Begich. Palin just blew up the dam, and we’ll see if he gets washed away. If he survives (probably will), he’s going to have to fight very hard to win next time around. In other words, he’ll have to represent Alaskan interests to gain reelection, and won’t have the freedom to line up with the D.C. dems as frequently if he’s interested in a long-term Senate career.
Are we better off with Stevens out of the Senate? Yep. Just like a patient with an infected toe is better off after the leg is amputated above the knee.
cs89 on April 2, 2009 at 9:47 PM
I believe that Sarah Palin is wrong in supporting a special election, but unlike the trolls on this site I’m enough of an independent thinker to say so even while I still back her 100%, while all the trolls are interested in doing is getting a paychck from Axelrod and the kissing the feet of the Messiah.
technopeasant on April 2, 2009 at 9:48 PM
Okfine…but Allahpundit has to be Alice this time. I get to be the Cat.
Allahpundit: Oh, thank you. I think I’ll see him…
strangelet: Of course, he’s mad, too.
Allahpundit: But I don’t want to go among mad people.
strangelet: Oh, you can’t help that. Most everyone’s mad here.
[laughs maniacally; starts to disappear]
strangelet: You may have noticed that I’m not all there myself.
“It [the Cheshire Cat] vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.”
strangelet on April 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM
And that makes her “not ready for prime time”? Being a *gasp* politician?
Nah, you laugh because your own insecurity in your indefensibly moonbat ideology drives you to seek validation in something other than the ideology itself. I mean, not even Matthews or Olbermann can help you out there.
ddrintn on April 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM
you know the answer to this, which is political during a freaking election the GOP was unpopular in,….yet ask it anyway in a snotty way, out of context only to make her look bad.
jp on April 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Punchenko on April 2, 2009 at 9:52 PM
How can you say with any certainty he’s guilty of any felony when the prosecution withheld evidence that could have exonerated him? That’s like saying the Duke Lacrosse Players got off on a technicality, but truly were guilty.
Amen.
From what I have read he was completely innocent of the charges against him.
I hate Pork but it is perfectly legal. He played by the rules and went out of his way to do so from what I can tell. Now I really wish the GOP would keep trash like Stevens out of the party but not by falsely convicting them crimes by perjured evidence. Even worse claiming them guilty after case is dismissed because the lie was exposed. It isn’t like good evidence was thrown out, it wasn’t, there never was good evidence.
Steveangell on April 2, 2009 at 9:54 PM
So how many felonies was he actually guilty of then? Only three or four? Hot Damn! Nominate him for President in 2012!
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Isn’t this what Democrats asked Roland Burris to do in IL with Obama’s seat? The manner in which Burris got the seat is shady and questionable, but he was appointed legally. Although a cloud hangs over Burris, he is still there “legally.” People may not like that, but it doesn’t change the constitutionality of his appointment.
Actually, a special election should’ve occurred with Obama’s seat but the Democrats opposed it fearing that a Republican could (would) win the seat because of the Blago mess. So they allowed Blago to appoint Burris, and then they changed their minds about it. Whether Burris himself is convicted of any pay-to-play is another story.
Correct me if I’m wrong please, but if Begich is there legally, then Gov. Palin asking him to resign and have a special election with Stevens seems to be the same overreach we accuse the Democrats of. He should serve out his term, even if I don’t like him.
conservative pilgrim on April 2, 2009 at 9:58 PM
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Yes. Si. Oui. Da.
BacaDog on April 2, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Did Gov.Palin not speak in a politicaly correct enough manner?
heshtesh on April 2, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Meh. How much of that was McCain talking? Hard to tell, given that weird campaign.
He’ll be too old anyway.
ddrintn on April 2, 2009 at 10:00 PM
I’m with you!
conservative pilgrim on April 2, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Z E R O
He was as guilty as the Duke LaCross players.
FBI Agent slept with chief witness gave him sweetheart deal to lie and say he wasn’t paid when he was. What a deal free sex and several years off a sentence you plead guilty to. Just for a little more perjury.
Prosecutors withheld every piece of exonerating evidence they found and lied that home improvements were worth $250,000 not the $60,000 they were worth and paid for/declared.
Steveangell on April 2, 2009 at 10:02 PM
It will never happen, but it’s great theater. What, no Sarah picture?
huckleberryfriend on April 2, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Exactly.
Nobody’s asking people to defend Steven’s pork barrel ways. But the cavalier attitude by some Republicans/conservatives towards the injustice that was done to him by the legal system would be stunning if it wasn’t so common these days.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Rumours of my demise have been exaggerated and if you do not stop trying to impersonate me I will have the Queen chop off the rest of what is left of your head.
Cheshire Cat on April 2, 2009 at 10:05 PM
My contention is the election is over, regardless of whether Stevens is guilty or not.
It’s like somebody wanting to replay the Super Bowl because the referee blew a pass interference call on the last offensive drive of the game.
Folks, that’s life.
technopeasant on April 2, 2009 at 10:05 PM
By your logic the DNC will steal every upcoming election. Because it is legal. If so the law is wrong. Courts should be able to correct injustices. When they can’t there is no law.
Steveangell on April 2, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Feet? I think our pitiful trolls (and most of the MSM) are striving for a higher goal.
Rodent on April 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM
I think the Duke LaCross players might take strong issue with that. What do you have against them? What did they ever do to you?
OJ, on the other hand now … …
Cheshire Cat on April 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Yeah, I agree. I suspect that part of this is just Palin pointing out that there just might have been a weeeee little bit of politics being played in the Stevens thing, just as there was in the exquisite timing and strictly “non-partisan” nature of the “Troopergate” stuff.
ddrintn on April 2, 2009 at 10:10 PM
+110%
profitsbeard on April 2, 2009 at 10:10 PM
The Duke LaCross players could not be reached for comment.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 10:10 PM
What was he guilty of??? Being a Republican.
None of the charges were proven or had any basis in fact.
Steveangell on April 2, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Given that the Duke Lacrosse players were also targets of prosecutorial abuse, I have a strong feeling they’d sympathize with Sen. Stevens, regardless of their feelings on his politics.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 10:13 PM
I take it some here will be supporting Erick Holder for Prez in 2016. I would think so anyway as it would be the right thing to do. He freed an innocent and Christian man!!! How many Republican candidates will be able to say that?
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 10:14 PM
I don’t think most people understand the level of misconduct by the prosecution in this case. Granted I’m no fan of Stevens use of the federal treasury for pet Alaskan projects but that’s a whole lot different then branding him some corrupt and felonious legislator. Wev Shea does an outstanding job detailing just how far the misconduct went at the Justice Department, it’s staggering.
When justice fails us by Wev Shea, (read all four parts)
As for Palin, I’m going to step out of character and defend Palin’s initial respond to have Stevens resign. She was put in an impossible position. The GOP base was livid and vocal about Stevens at the time, the McCain/Palin campaign had no choice but to call for his resignation. As for Palin now calling for Begich to resign, well that wasn’t the best political move. To start with it just comes off sounding ridiculous, because it is. It’s not going to happen so why bring it up.
lowandslow on April 2, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Hee Hee. LMAO!
HornetSting on April 2, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Stevens: good riddance to bad rubbish. His ilk are part of what cost us in recent elections.
Midas on April 2, 2009 at 10:15 PM
if you want an example of a red herring, comparing the Duke Lacrosse team situation with the criminal prosecution of Ted Stevens is the defintion of one.
technopeasant on April 2, 2009 at 10:16 PM
Are you his lawyer or his mom? How can you declare that none of the charges had any basis in fact and expect to be taken seriously?
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 10:17 PM
+100
What happened to both Stevens and Palin (via Troopergate) were outrages and the GOP should not lie down quietly like Rush says!
sarahpalinfan99 on April 2, 2009 at 10:17 PM
No, they really don’t. People are acting like the prosecutors made a few innocent boo-boos, when what they really did was withhold evidence that could have shown innocence, tampered with the chief witness for the government, and in the process, earned themselves a contempt of court citation and a very strong rebuke from the trial judge.
But hey, Stevens was addicted to pork, so we’re supposed to overlook that in order to prove how good and pure those of us on the right are – didn’t you get the memo?
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Isn’t Stevens something like 85 years old? Let him stay retired already.
I don’t have a problem with where Palin’s coming from though. Whether Stevens was guilty or not, his re-election campaign got screwed over by corrupt prosecutors.
Doughboy on April 2, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Shouldn’t that honor go to someone on the prosecution team? We wouldn’t be having this discussion without them.
ddrintn on April 2, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Next thing you know some will be comparing him to Joan of Arc. Why stop with the Duke LaCross players?
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM
Gov. Palin is to big for the Senate.
Clyde5445 on April 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM
lowandslow on April 2, 2009 at 10:15 PM
This is a strange day; first I agree with Lisa Murkowski over Sarah Palin where the former does not favor a special election and now I agree with lowandslow too. It has to be a full moon.
The next thing you know I’ll think Meghan McCain is more brilliant than Anne Coulter. On second thought, I’m not that crazy.
technopeasant on April 2, 2009 at 10:21 PM
This only makes sense in terms of internal Alaska politics in a scenario in which Palin is trying to repair relations within her state GOP. This not the action of someone positioning themselves favorably for a national audience, but it is one of a Governor focused on reelection. This is a guess, I don’t know that to be sure.
Robert_Paulson on April 2, 2009 at 10:22 PM
No, no. It was the rightious man Erick Holder who freed
the LaCross players Joan of ArcSaint Stevens, so I think he should get our support in 2016.MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 10:22 PM
conservative pilgrim on April 2, 2009 at 9:58 PM
I agree with your basic premise that Begich is there legally. There are a few issues with the Begich/Burris comparison, however. The dems just didn’t have the stones to do what they needed to in order to keep Blago from appointing him.
Begich won a public election, but the conviction clearly influenced the results. IMO, Palin scores points by appealing to Begich to do the “honorable” thing (he doesn’t have to, and probably won’t) and highlights the injustice of the election. She’s setting the political stage to help Begich out of office, now or later.
cs89 on April 2, 2009 at 10:23 PM
That said, I don’t think this is a big deal ultimately, and I still prefer Palin over any other likely choice for the ’12 nod.
Robert_Paulson on April 2, 2009 at 10:24 PM
heck its not like she was saying stevens should run again. She was just saying that the whole election process was tainted because of the bogus accusations against stevens at the time. I highly doubt Begich would resign, but I think he SHOULD have to go through a special election with a republican. This time without all of the justice department circus running around.
ousoonerfan15 on April 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Who said Stevens is a saint? You can condemn the process without exonerating him.
ddrintn on April 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Nice straw man, Andy.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM
Sounds like Allen was provided with child prostitutes. More like Duke than I ever imagined.
Either you are a troll or you need to go to link and read all four parts. I betting on troll go back to KOS where the four letter words you miss so much here are common.
Steveangell on April 2, 2009 at 10:27 PM
That’s for citisens of Alaska to decide.
fireweednectar on April 2, 2009 at 10:31 PM
They did.
BacaDog on April 2, 2009 at 10:33 PM
How rapidly standards are disappearing. Kind of like what some say about my tail. Soon there will be none at all.
Cheshire Cat on April 2, 2009 at 10:33 PM
To support my Palin-detente-with-AK-GOP-old-guard theory, let’s review her last three major actions:
1) Appointing conservative grassroots favorite W.A.R. as her Attorney General
2) Refusing to appoint the AK House Democratic Leader to a senate seat and attempting to appoint a conservative Democrat who just recently had been a registered Republican instead.
3) Joining every other high-profile Alaskan Republican in denouncing Stevens’ mis-prosecution and demanding Begich stand-down.
It’s really striking to me that she’s associating herself specifically with Ruedrich’s comments. Frankly, those two hate one another. Like, really hate one another.
This is tough, ugly, smelly politics, but if it means that Sarah finally gets some support and cooperation from her fellow AK GOPers, then maybe its worth it.
Robert_Paulson on April 2, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Huh? This is about the rule of law–the one that is on the books. My point with Burris is that people didn’t like him and his ties to Blago because it made Obama look bad, so the Dems wanted to get rid of Burris. Thus, disregarding the rule of law.
The situations seem to be quite similar. Stevens was convicted last fall, lost the election, and now the charges have been dropped. We don’t like the outcome, it reeks of injustice, so now we want a special election? Unless Begich chooses to run in a special election, then this is a moot point. I’m saying be consistent in your arguments. Whether a D or R is behind someone’s name shouldn’t (ideally) alter our reasoning.
If the people of Alaska thought Stevens should’ve been re-elected then they would’ve voted him in. Knowing him for 40+ years, they didn’t give him the benefit of the doubt or whatever others are saying here.
Laws can be amended and introduced to “correct injustices.” Change the laws to avoid future situations like this one if that’s the case.
conservative pilgrim on April 2, 2009 at 10:37 PM
I don’t know, could it be that we now know that the convictions were bogus and the result prosecutorial misconduct? I am not saying that Stevens is ethical. However, the facts have changed, so it follows that her opinion has changed. Additionally, this does not mean that Palin supports Stevens. What is does say is that she thinks that Alaskans should get a chance to make an informed decision on who they really want as their senator and that the “conviction” of Stevens denied them that privilege.
The Opinionator on April 2, 2009 at 10:41 PM
The two cases are not identical. But Blago was elected to a public office also. He was impeached and finally indicted today. Technically speaking, he had the legal authority to appoint Burris. Now we will find out if he, Burris and anyone else did everything legally.
I think they should’ve held a special election for that seat like they did for Rahm Emmanuel’s seat. But they tried to strong arm the situation with the Sec State trying to do something unconstitutional and everyone else pressuring Burris to resign.
Both cases are fraught with injustices and shadiness, but at the time were legal. Right? I just don’t agree with Gov. Palin on this issue and think she’s overreaching her authority in the same way the Democrats were overreaching with Burris.
And politicians doing the honorable thing? I know you’ll laugh with me. Blago should’ve resigned long ago and the Burris issue would have been a non-issue. I highly doubt Begich will comply with Palin’s request.
conservative pilgrim on April 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM
If you bet, you had better use someone else’s money, like your man Stevens was so fond of doing, as you would be making a bad bet.
BTW, aren’t you even willing to grant me a trial before convicting me of being a “troll” and being “from Kos” and “missing four letter words so much”? Even Stevens got a trial. You should clearly be charged with multiple counts of prosecutorial misconduct as well as gross hypocrisy.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Begich stepping down and having a special election would be silly and I don’t think Sarah actually wants this to happen.
But it seems she has grown a bit of a soft spot for the old man in recent days and he was done wrong by this prosecution.
Still, Stevens is a scumbag and I’m happy there is one less corrupt Republican in Congress.
myrenovations on April 2, 2009 at 10:49 PM
OK. So Governor Palin likes the idea of having Alaska citizens getting the chance to make the choice since Stevens has been exonerated due to the malfeasance of the Bush prosecutors. OM freaking G! Horrors!</strong>
Better to be like the Illinois Governor and let the politicians make the choice, and/or treat an exonerated
man as if he were found guilty without any reasonable doubt by our judicial system, eh? Heck, let’s have The One decide for us. :oP
DannoJyd on April 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM
You deserve to receive as much benefit of the doubt as you are willing to extend to Stevens with regard to the 7 felony counts he was charged with. No more, no less.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Ahh! Putting him in Stevens shoes. I like it!
DannoJyd on April 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM
My name is not Andy and that was a bit of sarcasm, not a straw man. Don’t you even know the difference? Guess not.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Did I ever take payoffs?
No.
Was I ever convicted in a court of law, even an imperfect one, or even charged, with seven felonies, any felonies, any even misdemeanors?
No.
Did Erick Holder ever overturn convictions against me?
No, and there have never been any convictions, nor charges, by any actual prosecutors.
Comparing me to Stevens, even with a degree of sarcasm which didn’t seem to be present, is quite absurd.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:01 PM
If Erick Holder ever overturns convictions against Blago, I wonder how many of Steven’s supporters here will defend Blago.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:03 PM
BTW, this is no trial and you are no judge.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:06 PM
I do not fit in his shoes at all. Not in the least. Anyone with even a modicum of perceptive ability could see that. Now, if you wanted to say in the shoes of those who convicted him, at least that would make some sense anyway, although not much.
You seem to have some kind of “lynch mob” mentality.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Has anyone proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in fair trial, that Stevens did?
No.
Was Stevens convicted in a fair trial, wherein the prosecution presented ALL the evidence, including that which could have exonerated Stevens?
No.
Was Stevens convicted in a fair trial wherein the prosecution did not tamper with the government’s chief witness by way of a sexual affair and exertion of improper in order to get that witness to change his testimony to something more damaging to Stevens?
No.
Was Stevens convicted by prosecutors who were not held in contempt of court by the trial judge?
No.
Contending that Stevens is guilty because he was merely charged is quite absurd, as you have effectively done.
Acting as the trial was merely “imperfect” when the prosecution clearly withheld evidence and tampered with a witness in order to obtain a conviction is even more absurd.
What’s most absurd is your inability to distinguish between Stevens pork barreling ways (reprehensible, but not illegal)
with actual felonies, which were not proven with all the facts on the table in a fair trial.
But what’s all too typical of you and so many others on the right (assuming that’s where your politics lies) is your knee-jerk willingness to throw another Republican under the bus and to prosecutors who can’t play it straight because you are more worried about having a squeaky clean image than fighting for what is right (as in fair trials, rule of law, and so forth). But hey, at least democrats and Allahpundit will like you, so that’s a small price to pay, isn’t it?
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 11:12 PM
As much as I love Sarah Palin… and hate Dimmcritter slime wherever it lies….
This idea is completely nuts. Why in the world should Begich resign an election he won? Its just stupid and insulting to even suggest it. Give me a break.
And Ted Stevens. Just because the DOJ f’ed up the prosecution, does not mean that he is suddenly “innocent” – He got a lucky break, and won the criminal’s jackpot. That does not mean he shouldn’t rot in hell…..
Come on conservatives: Can we PUH-LEEASE stop trying stupid crap like this… its embarassing.
Really.
seanrobins on April 2, 2009 at 11:13 PM
If Patrick Fitzgerald prosecutes Blago the same way he did with Libby, I’ll be the first one here to defend Blago’s right to a fair trial. In fact, I’ll defend it now.
If Fitzgerald and Co. have a solid case against Blago, there is no need for them to withhold evidence or tamper with witnesses or do anything else that would deny him a fair trial. And BTW, it’s only through a fair trial that you can reasonably establish guilt – another concept that seems to have escaped you in your zeal to throw a Republican under the bus.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 11:14 PM
Most of the conservatives I know would in a second. Especially if it were shown as with Stevens that the prosecutor was corrupt. By the looks of it this was the most corrupt prosecution in the history of the US.
Blago got a raw deal. They broke the law to impeach him. They ignored every other politician that was doing the same as Blago. Obama ran his campaign but this was totally ignored by everyone. This reeks of corruption but we support the rule of law.
Steveangell on April 2, 2009 at 11:19 PM
The most corrupt prosecution in the history of the US?
I fear that you are becoming quite hysterical.
When in a hole, first stop digging.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:22 PM
Our whole system depends of fair elections. This was the most unfair one in American History. This is the only time in history where three prosecutors were found in contempt and another not in contempt because he was just following orders. There have only been two others found in contempt ever. The sole purpose of this criminal enterprise was to do in Stevens and it succeeded.
Steveangell on April 2, 2009 at 11:24 PM
Don’t you owe SarahPac like $950 dollars?
portlandon on April 2, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Uhhh, no.
Election’s over.
This is amazingly stupid.
Makes Republicans look like morons.
Stevens is guilty as guilty can be. Some procedural bullsh1t suddenly erases all the evidence against him? Are you all on glue?
Dave Rywall on April 2, 2009 at 11:28 PM
It would appear that some would like to overthrow election laws and constitutions, not to mention common sense.
If I played the lotto I would ask him to pick my numbers.
Highly embarrassing to conservatives. Looks like we may have to wonder in the desert longer that I had thought.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:29 PM
An FBI whistle blower brought Stevens his victory…An FBI agent, and DOJ prosecutors are being investigated for creating false evidence, it is already beyond a doubt that they withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense which is unconstitutional. Some heads are going to fall in the DOJ and FBI besides the ones in the Office of Prosecutor Integrity (they have already been fired). Prosecutors for the DOJ were also held in contempt by Judge Sullivan for failure to carry out a court order to provide evidence to the defense.
Replacement Prosecutors found notes and evidence which was not provided to defense…AG Holder had enough so he is dismissing all charges.
Exactly how can one look at the feds corruption and illegal acts and not question the influence it had on the election. If this had been a dem, the media would be all over it demanding a new election.
aigle on April 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM
I am on microbrew beer myself, or soon will be anyway. I can not speak for anyone else,
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Witholding exculpatory evidence and tampering with witnesses by the prosecution is procedural bullsh!t?
I’d say you’re the one on glue.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 11:34 PM
The 1st Amendment guarantees the People the right to petition the government (tho I don’t know how they determine what branch would handle it) for the redressing of grievances. In this case, where the actions of Federal government had an illegitimate negative effect on Sen. Stevens re-election bid, I think the 1st Amendment protections absolutely apply and should be made use of.
The virtues and vices of Sen. Stevens aside, his fate should have been decided at the ballot box in a fair vote by the people of Alaska — not with a late-forming cloud of legal accusation hanging over his head.
He may indeed be a lousy senator, but that doesn’t make the outcome of that election right.
Harpazo on April 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Stevens is 84 years old, and is VERY popular in Alaska. He’s been around the politics up there since before Alaska was a state.
She is throwing a bone to the Alaskan GOP, as to get that pipeline finished. Stevens went out & had Lunch at Palins home last week, and I think Stevens might use some of his political muscle up there to help her out with this. Ted Stevens is a porker, but he is not a socialist liberal idiot. He was a good Senator for his state, and I really believe he has the best interest of Alaska at heart. Give me Ted Stevens over the Maine Bail-out twins anyday.
portlandon on April 2, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Just as I accused you of:
And by your own admission, to boot.
Guilty as charged.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM
Also, he may very well be guilty as Hell; I don’t really care either way. Until he is proven so in a court of law — and not the court of public opinion — he remains innocent and the election results remain unjust.
Harpazo on April 2, 2009 at 11:38 PM
I’m totally with Robert_Paulson on this. Palin was making a comment meant for local consumption–unfortunately or fortunately, every little thing she says or emails becomes national news. She was supporting the position of the AK GOP as well as commiserating with Stevens about the injustice done him. Making nice with the AK GOP is a smart move….she may be trying to forestall a “nuisance primary” in ’10.
howIroll on April 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM
Does it strike anyone else that Stevens’ being “vindicated” is like Michael Corleone being “exonerated” at the end of the congressional hearings in Godfather II?
burnitup on April 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM
And I love that you are whining like a little bitch about being accused after you yourself are willing to assign guilt to Stevens even in light of clear violations of law by the prosecutions (a legal determination made by none other than the judge at his trial).
Irony, thy name is MB4.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM
I never contended that he “is guilty because he was merely charged”. Never.
BTW, yet again, he was convicted, like it or not, right, wrong or indifferent.
You are clearly guilty of gross prosecutorial misconduct and if you actually have a licence to practice law you should be disbarred.
You don’t even debate logically as you keep making some kind of self parody of yourself.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM
Does it strike you that you are comparing a set of real-life facts to a movie script?
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 11:44 PM
So was Bill Clinton. Did that fill you with righteous indignation toward Billy? I’m thinking not.
ddrintn on April 2, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Never watched any of the Godfather flicks, however it wouldn’t surprise me.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Through innuendo, you did. Don’t play the passive-aggressive AP card now.
He was convicted by a DC jury in a trial where the prosecution withheld evidence, and tampered with the government’s star witness. That’s not a fair trial, it’s a show trial more appropriate for the Soviet Union. A conviction under those circumstances proves nothing.
And yet you’ve shown no willingness on this thread to hold the prosecutors of Stevens to any standard of conduct, as you have yet to level any meaningful criticism of gross misconduct that was enough to earn them a contempt of court citation by the trial judge, cost them their jobs, get the conviction overturned, and possibly get them further legal sanction.
thirteen28 on April 2, 2009 at 11:49 PM
I guess he brought home the pork too, like Murtha. In some districts, and maybe in some whole states, that makes someone who is corrupt popular.
Has Murtha, who has never been convicted, or even charged, also getting a raw deal? He has certainly been slammed about the head and shoulders around these parts and many times.
Discuss.
MB4 on April 2, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Seriously, is anybody surprised that simple sarah cannot distinguish prosecutory misconduct and an exoneration?
Nobody? I didn’t think so.
benny shakar on April 2, 2009 at 11:54 PM
I don’t blame Murtha as much as the idiots who vote for him.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 12:03 AM
AP wrote:
Under the O-bismal circumstances, do you really think so?
exdeadhead on April 3, 2009 at 12:03 AM
You don’t have much room to throw stones. It’s prosecutorial misconduct.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 12:06 AM
No I did not, nor am I playing this “passive-aggressive AP card” of yours. You clearly have a lot in common with these prosecutors you seem to despise so much, an awful lot, and you don’t seem to even able to see it, and after all the help I have been to you in pointing it out. So sad. Down right wierd actually.
Self-parodyPhysician, heal thyself.MB4 on April 3, 2009 at 12:07 AM
Wow. AP sure attracts seminar bloggers to the comment pages. We have a constitutional right to a fair trial…AG Holder is overturning the conviction, which means Stevens is innocent. i.e. presumed innocent.
To claim he is guilty of felonies based on Prosecutors and a FBI agent found to have violated the constitution in two ways: creating false evidence, and withholding exculpatory evidence (actually withholding evidence would be bad, but withholding exculpatory evidence is worse). These prosecutors were so blatantly corrupt the trial judge put them in jail on contempt charges…these prosecutors failed to provide evidence to the defense even after being ordered to do so by the judge. There is more, but this is enough.
Ted Stevens is as innocent of any felony charge as MB4.
aigle on April 3, 2009 at 12:09 AM
And what exactly is the theory of unfairness here? As I recall, he was prosecuted by Bush’s DOJ, not a Democrat’s. Like the boss says, Stevens was a pork-guzzling corruptocrat even if his corruption didn’t rise to the level of a criminal offense. Aren’t we better off rid of him?
The THEORY is that with STEVENS we have a better chance of stopping cap and trade and national healthcare.
unseen on April 3, 2009 at 12:09 AM
I still like her, and would rather have her as Prez than Obama, but don’t want her as the Republican nominee in 2012.
Never give a sword to a woman who cant’s dance.
- Confucius
MB4 on April 3, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Me thinks that the underlying theory seems mainly to be that, “He may be a crook, but he is “our” crook”.
I go from thinking that there is a big difference between Republicans and democrats, to thinking that there is not much at all. Back and forth. Maybe we do need another party.
MB4 on April 3, 2009 at 12:16 AM
And what exactly is the theory of unfairness here? As I recall, he was prosecuted by Bush’s DOJ, not a Democrat’s.
AP:
So, since Bush was president and a Republican and Stevens was a Republican…Your point is Stevens had a fair trial? False evidence was created and exculpatory evidence withheld!
.
AP, you remind me of Louis: “I’m shocked, shocked that there is gambling going on here!” while he receives his “winnings”.
aigle on April 3, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »