Paul Crowley

• Sarah Palin has accepted their invitation to join, when she's everything they need to rebrand away from
• And the Family Research Council hate them anyway before they've barely opened their mouths.

October 27, 2008

1) Who do you think is going to win the election?

A) John McCain: 53% (39)
B) Barack Obama: 47% (34)

2) Do you think Sarah Palin has been a plus or a minus to the ticket?

A) Minus: 9% (7)
B) Plus: 91% (68)

3) How do you feel about Sarah Palin as a candidate?

A) I really like her!: 80% (61)
B) She's so-so.: 12% (9)
C) I'm not a big fan!: 8% (6)

4) The Republican Party did poorly in the 2006 election and even if McCain wins is on track to do poorly again in this year's Congressional races. If you had to choose between these two options, do you think that's because they were...

A) Too conservative: 9% (7)
B) Not conservative enough: 91% (67)

I look at these people and can’t quite believe that they exist. Are they professional actors? I wonder. Or are they simply laymen who want a lot of attention?

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked.

• The story has now hit the mainstream. This USA Today story seems to have led the charge.
• It seems to be pretty much established as fact that it was going on, so the only remaining question is whether she knew about it.
• It obviously reflects badly on her if she did know about it and did nothing to stop it, and almost as obviously it reflects pretty badly on her if it was going on under her nose in her tiny town and she didn't know about it.
• Palin's people have responded to the story:

  Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said in an e-mail that the governor "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

  "Gov. Palin's position could not be more clear," she said. "To suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice."

  Comella would not answer other questions, including when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. The campaign cited the governor's record on domestic violence, including increasing funding for shelters.

  In other words, evasion on the central question of the story - did she know about it at the time?
• Update: Finally another meaty bit of mainstream coverage, from CNN.

  In a statement, Jill Hazelbaker, communications director for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that "to imply that Gov. Palin is or has ever been an advocate of charging victims for evidence gathering kits is an utter distortion of reality."

  "As her record shows, Gov. Palin is committed to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice," Hazelbaker said. "She does not, nor has she ever believed that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence gathering test."

  Those who fought the policy are unconvinced.

  "It's incomprehensible to me that this could be a rogue police chief and not a policy decision. It lasted too long and it was too high-profile," Croft said.

  Again, the campaign avoids the question.
• Reporters would probably like to ask her directly, but of course she has not held a press conference since joining the ticket three weeks ago. There's a lot more to say about her avoiding the press but it's a subject for another entry.
• Weak evidence that she knew is provided here: she signed off on a budget that included charges for these kits.
• She fired the previous police chief to appoint Fannon, the police chief responsible for this policy. The fired chief claims the policy started with Fannon.
• The only defender of Palin writing about this I can find doesn't seem to advance any kind of defence at all. (Update: another non-defence, and another)
• Updated: the National Review has a more serious go.
• It's sometimes pointed out that health insurance will carry most of the costs of the kits. However
  • The poorest women may not have health insurance, and they deserve justice too
  • Even those with health insurance will have to pay an excess
  • Even if neither of the above were true the charge is wrong in principle - where else are victims expected to pay the cost of evidence gathering?
• Given Alaska's unusually high rape rate, we might expect that about 30 or so women will have reported rapes in the time between her appointing Fannon as police chief, and the 2000 legislation barring the practice across Alaska which Fannon spoke against. If she didn't know about it, we're expected to believe that of those 30 women who were charged for their kits (and their friends) not one drew this extraordinary injustice to the attention of the mayor. I'm hoping we'll be hearing from some of those 30 women over the coming weeks.