IPR has previously reported that Sarah Palin had been involved in various ways with the Alaska Libertarian Party from 2004-2006, culminating in an endorsement from that party for her 2006 gubanatorial campaign.
Well, that isn’t her only involvement in the third-party scene,apparently. Palin also recently sent a recorded video message to the Alaskan Independence Party at their 2008 convention, and it is rumored she attended at least one of them prior to being elected Governor.
But the rabbit hole certainly doesn’t stop there. Sarah Palin was also a fundraiser for Buchanan in 1996 and a supporter of Pat Buchanan in his 2000 run for President with the Reform Party. In an Associated Press story from July 17, 1999, titled, “Buchanan takes conservative message to Fairbanks”:
“Pat Buchanan brought his conservative message of a smaller government and an America First foreign policy to Fairbanks and Wasilla on Friday as he continued a campaign swing through Alaska….In Wasilla, Buchanan took some shots at the “Republican establishment,” saying it was willing to cast aside conservative ideals in a zeal to ensure the nomination for Bush. ‘I’m hoping the people of Alaska will disagree that we need a candidate anointed by Washington, D.C.,’ he said to a group of three dozen supporters. Among those sporting Buchanan buttons were Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin and state Sen. Jerry Ward, R-Anchorage.”
However, it should be noted that Palin was on Steve Forbes’ leadership committee for Alaska in 2000.
EDIT: Richard Winger has brought it to my attention that in July of 1999, Pat Buchanan was still seeking the nomination of the Republican Party, and would not make the switch to the Reform Party until October of that year. It is likely that Palin supported Buchanan as a Republican but not a Reformer.
40 responses so far ↓
1 richardwinger // Aug 31, 2008 at 12:00 am
Pat Buchanan was seeking the Republican presidential nomination between Feb. 1999 and October 1999. I’m pretty sure she supported him for the Republican nomination, but not for the Reform nomination. Pat switched to seeking the Reform nomination in Oct. 1999.
2 Trent Hill // Aug 31, 2008 at 12:04 am
Richard,
I see, that makes sense.
3 Spence // Aug 31, 2008 at 1:32 am
If anything, she should take a hit amongst libertarians for this information. Pat Buchanan is a bigoted paleoconservative. I’d be interested to know what drew her to his platform originally.
4 Trent Hill // Aug 31, 2008 at 1:36 am
Spence,
Paleoconservatives and Libertarians often have alot of overlap. In a short 2 years I’v gone from Paleoconservative to Libertarianesque minarchist.
5 Spence // Aug 31, 2008 at 1:41 am
I’m aware of the overlap, that is why I said I would be “interested to know” what drew her to his platform, specifically. After all, paleoconservatives tend to downplay certain social liberties. Paleoconservatism is a ridiculous term really.
6 johncjackson // Aug 31, 2008 at 2:15 am
Regardless of any libertarian overlap, she is running as a pure social-con focusing on the antis of anti-abortion, anti-gay.
That and being female- a blatant attempt at the millions of pro-life Republican Hillary Clinton supporters.
7 Spence // Aug 31, 2008 at 2:43 am
Besides, libertarian-leaning feminist is an oxymoron.
8 Deran // Aug 31, 2008 at 3:20 am
“Besides, libertarian-leaning feminist is an oxymoron.”
Well, it depends if your talking abt the recent libertarian capitalist movement, or the historial libertarian movement; going back, at least, to the self described libertarian communists of the 1870 Paris Commune, for instance were very feminist, for their day. And historical anarchism, again predating contemporary libertarian capitalism by a hundred plus years, has always been strongly feminist.
Sorry, but as someone who read Bakunin a long time ago, it mildly bothers me when anarchism and libertarianism are used to refer to a new fangled capitalist ideology.
9 Trent Hill // Aug 31, 2008 at 3:23 am
Deran,
Lysander Spooner was advancing the idea of Anarcho-capitalism back in the 1840’s, which probably makes him one of the earlier people to use the word “Libertarian”.
10 Trent Hill // Aug 31, 2008 at 3:24 am
Also,
I dont see any reason why EITHER form of “Libertarian”, capitalist or otherwise, would be antithetical to feminism…
Feminism is supposed to be equal rights for women. Its Radical Feminism that seeks special priveleges.
11 Spence // Aug 31, 2008 at 3:33 am
Equality is a natural result of voluntary association and recognition. Radical feminists have hijacked the current wave of feminists and are a collective. How can you be for the advancement of a collective over the individual if you are a libertarian?
If you want to get that specific, Deran, the anarchy at roots of libertarianism in general emphasizes these voluntary promotions of the individual, not of groups.
12 pdsa // Aug 31, 2008 at 7:30 am
Sarah Heath Palin was for the bridge to nowhere, before she was against it:
Tom Kizzia, “Palin touts stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop“, Anchorage Daily News, August 31st, 2008
Sarah Heath Palin is not opposed to earmarks:
John Katz, “My Turn: Palin not abandoning earmarks altogether“, Juneau Empire, March 18, 2008
A flip-flopping liar, or in short, a typical politician.
13 langa // Aug 31, 2008 at 7:35 am
There are a number of prominent libertarians, such as Wendy McElroy and Roderick Long, who are very concerned about feminist issues. While there’s not always perfect agreement among these people as to how libertarianism and feminism should interact, they nevertheless consider themselves feminists.
Also, Deran, as I’ve mentioned before, there’s a long tradition of individualist anarchists like Spooner and Benjamin Tucker who, while not being pure capitalists, were vehemently opposed to socialism. Besides, regardless of the historical origins of the words, most of today’s leading thinkers who call themselves “libertarians” and/or “anarchists” are advocates of the market.
14 libertyaction // Sep 1, 2008 at 11:56 am
Sad to see during a libertarian discussion, someone asserting that Benjamin Tucker was a capitalist or an apologist for capitalism, when a cursory search of the sources could have disabused him of such untrue notion. In just the first or second source I opened, http://www.blackcrayon.com/essays/capitalism/take2/, we find:
The term ’socialism’ has become conflated with centralized-authority, just as the term ‘capitalism’ has become conflated with free markets. These are both dangerous confusions.
If Socialism is defined as an extreme form of centralized authority, then how could any anarchist, with sound mind fuse the two?
Because social-anarchists do not define socialism as centralized authority.
The social-anarchists are truer to the original conceptions of socialism than the more prevalent state-socialists.
Socialism was, as Benjamin Tucker summarized it, the position “that labor should be put into its own.”
To understand what this means requires a reassessment of, for instance, the word ‘capitalism’. In its strictest (and simplest) form, the term means only this: PROFIT FROM CAPITAL.
‘Socialism’, in a less-strict, but nevertheless accurate and simple form means: OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM.
After a discussion of the Labor Theory of Value, I quote again:
Tucker’s argument was, further, that capitalism could not succeed in a free market. Yes, really. Not only did he not define ‘capitalism’ and ‘free market’ similarly, but he believed that they were incompatible. He believed that capitalism could only succeed in the context of a state controlled monopoly on currency.
This was just the first site I came across. There is an entire literature on Benjamin Tucker, much of it self generated, that modern libertarians should know about, especially those libertarians who have pretensions of anarchism.
15 Spence // Sep 1, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Just shows you how labels change to reflect the times. It’s interesting, liberty, that you mention that definition, as that is what we generally refer to as corporatism these days.
16 pdsa // Sep 1, 2008 at 12:55 pm
@ libertyaction - “libertarians who have pretensions of anarchism”
And what pearls of wisdom do you have for those of us who have no pretensions about our anarchist leanings?
Amusing dialectical irony between your pseudo and your post, btw.
17 G.E. // Sep 1, 2008 at 1:49 pm
OMG
Palin’s 17-year-old, unmarried daughter is knocked up.
Great parenting and family values.
McCain is lying and saying he knew about this in advance of picking her.
YEAH, RIGHT.
They think “Bristol” (what’s with the hippie kid names) should get a medal for “keeping” the baby. How about keeping her legs closed?
Liberal elites said Palin was one step removed from white trash — make that zero.
18 G.E. // Sep 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Oh, and btw: There’s also a rumor that Palin’s baby with Down’s Syndrome is actually, in bad movie/book style, Bristol’s. This probably isn’t true, but it will be acceptable to bring it up now, with her daughter’s looseness confirmed.
19 langa // Sep 1, 2008 at 2:21 pm
“Sad to see during a libertarian discussion, someone asserting that Benjamin Tucker was a capitalist or an apologist for capitalism…”
It must be not only sad, but somewhat scary as well, to “see” things that aren’t there. I think that’s generally referred to as being delusional. If you reread my post, you’ll clearly “see” (unless you’re still hallucinating) that I never said Tucker was a capitalist or an “apologist” for capitalism.
I merely said that he was an individualist anarchist (indisputably true) and that he was vehemently opposed to the “libertarian” anarcho-socialism advocated by Bakunin and others (also indisputably true). I’m well aware of how the meaning of these words has changed over time, but you must not be.
20 Ross Levin // Sep 1, 2008 at 3:16 pm
GE - I don’t think those are hippy names. I think those are white trash names. Isn’t Bristol some kind of over-the-counter medicine?
21 paulie cannoli // Sep 1, 2008 at 4:01 pm
For the rumors to be true, that would mean Bristol is not as pregnant as she says she is.
22 G.E. // Sep 1, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Is Bristol the oldest one? If so… Let’s just say Red Phillips would be a fan of her’s. Then again, that might have to do with the pregnancy.
Regardless, this is a PARENTING FAIL by the would-be VP.
I think she’ll be dumped from the ticket.
23 Mike Theodore // Sep 1, 2008 at 5:48 pm
No one seems to care, G.E.
I know I don’t.
24 Ross Levin // Sep 1, 2008 at 5:49 pm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/1/16210/07141/376/582375
25 G.E. // Sep 1, 2008 at 5:54 pm
No one seems to care?
Um, whatever, young fool.
26 Mike Theodore // Sep 1, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Maybe they do, I just haven’t heard anyone bitching about it. Then again, I don’t have CNN, so I can’t hear the pundits cover something to death.
27 G.E. // Sep 1, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Do some Googling, Mikey… This story hasn’t even begin to unfold. This is going to get darker and dirtier than anyone here yet realizes.
28 Mike Theodore // Sep 1, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Only time will tell. I’m not going to sit here and feed the flames about something I don’t really see as a big deal.
29 paulie cannoli // Sep 1, 2008 at 7:05 pm
This is going to get darker and dirtier than anyone here yet realizes.
As IPR’s roving correspondent, it would fall on me to do an in-depth inside investigation, should one be required. Dark and dirty is my specialty. Somebody buy me a plane ticket - there’s a good chance I’ll find something juicy.
30 Mike Theodore // Sep 1, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Don’t need a plane ticket to rove to Alaska…
31 Spence // Sep 1, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Give it some time. People won’t care that much. I mean, look how quick the Bush twins were absolved…
32 paulie cannoli // Sep 1, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Canada’s ruling gang does not allow me entry, so a plane ticket would be required.
However, even that may not work, since airlines will now not make any exceptions for an expired ID, and states won’t issue me a new one without using an SS number…so, amend that to ship ticket?
33 Mike Theodore // Sep 1, 2008 at 7:15 pm
You can borrow a ten year old Bayliner with a faulty engine if you find your way in Illinois.
34 paulie cannoli // Sep 1, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Ah, yes, the Bush twins.
Yet another undercover, back channel investigation that is still on my plate.
35 Spence // Sep 1, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Excellent.
36 Mike Theodore // Sep 1, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Well, I hope you know how to repair an engine in the middle of the Ocean.
37 paulie cannoli // Sep 1, 2008 at 8:29 pm
I’ll have to bring Andy. He’s much more MacGyverish.
38 G.E. // Sep 1, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Mike - Not a big deal?
Sarah Palin says she’s only for contraception for married couples. Her 17-year-old daughter not only can’t keep her legs closed, she gets knocked up. Palin is a right-wing moralizer who wants to run your life, morally, and she can’t even keep her household together. The hypocrisy of right-wing Christians never ceases to astound me.
I think it’s a big deal and it SHOULD be a big deal.
They’re trying to paint the girl as a hero for not aborting her baby. That’s like calling some guy a hero because he doesn’t beat his h0oker.
39 paulie cannoli // Sep 1, 2008 at 9:54 pm
That’s like calling some guy a hero because he doesn’t beat his h0oker.
Well, OK, so I’m not a hero.
Actually, I’m more of a burger. A couple of decades ago I used to be a hot dog, though.
40 Mike Theodore // Sep 1, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Look, I’d love to sit here and tear into her “moral” politics. But I just wouldn’t feel right turning her daughter into a political issue. I could, but I just wouldn’t feel right doing it.
You must log in to post a comment.