NOPE

April 27, 2009: With a 2010 re-election campaign about to come knocking on the door of Governor Sarah Palin, the lyrics to the classic rock song "Should I stay or should I go" by the Clash are probably rattling around in that head of hers.

But there is only one verse that is even remotely relevant as it applies to Palin's political future; "If I go there will be trouble, and if I stay it will be double."

There are fewer torturous decisions for an incumbent than the choice between seeking a presumably safe re-election and tossing it aside to reach for a larger, elusive, more shinier brass ring.

However in this case, Sarah Palin doesn't have a choice. Either she reaches for the ring now, or it's gone for good.

Palin's Challenge: Time and Space

One of the biggest challenge facing Palin is the calendar.

Facing re-election in November of 2010 means that if Palin seeks re-election while harboring hopes about competing for the GOP nomination for president in 2012, she'd have to hit the campaign trail less than two months after she gets re-elected to serve a four year term as governor.

If Palin seeks re-election in 2010, the most commonly asked question of her from opponents and the press will be, "Do you commit to serving your full four year term without leaving to run for president." The question will be poised an unmerciful amount of times due to Palin's proven selective memory when it comes to keeping campaign promises.

And while Palin was chosen in 2008, if she elects to run for President in 2012, it will be a calculated decision determined by her own free will.

If Palin answers yes, and agrees to serve out a four year term without abandoning Alaska, then she'll send an instant message that she is no longer in the hunt for 2012 and will lose the national spotlight. Meanwhile, her lower 48 grass roots supporters will find another candidate to fill the vacuum.

If Palin answers no, and is unable to clearly promise to make a four year commitment to Alaska voters, then her opponents will use it to confirm what has been a growing belief over the last eight months; Palin's focus is not on Alaska but on herself. 

If Palin commits to a four year term then runs for president anyway, she'll be crucified by her opponents as a liar and yet another politician who will say anything to get elected. And if she thinks the ethics complaints being filed now are frustrating, just wait until she is traipsing around the country for a year and a half while she should be here governing. 

One of the risks for Palin seeking re-election is that she may lose. Even if she prevails in a close election, her star will be tarnished. Remember, one of the biggest sales pitches that McCain used in 2008 was that Palin was the most popular politician in the United States.

Today, Palin isn't even the most popular politician in Alaska; U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski holds that distinction.

During Palin's first run for governor in 2006, Democratic Gubernatorial nominee Tony Knowles rejected outside Democrat Party money and insisted they stay out of the race for governor. In 2010, Democrats will have both the cash and the increased incentive to throw the kitchen sink at Palin if she runs for re-election.

And if she survives the race for governor in 2010 and then waltzes off to run for president, the time demands will be much more crippling than her extended vacation with McCain in 2008.

While running for VP, Palin was absent from the state for a little more than two months and didn't miss any of the legislative session. 

If she chases the dream of GOP 2012, it will require her to be on the campaign trail for at least fifteen months. That means Palin would miss two entire legislative sessions out of a four year term at a time when Alaska will be facing significant problems. 

D.C. Calling: Palin's White House Fantasy 

To show just how early the campaign for president would begin after the November 2010 election, just look at recent history.

McCain formed his exploratory committee for the 2008 presidential race within a week after the 2006 election and declared his candidacy two months later. Mitt Romney formed his exploratory committee on January 3, 2007 and formerly announced the next month. Mike Huckabee announced his candidacy on January 28, 2007.

In all, by February of 2007, just three months after the November 2006 election the field of major contenders was set. With 2012 providing no incumbent for the GOP, the positioning will begin sooner and as some might even say, the positioning has already begun.

Palin's time pressures are greater than her potential rivals as she needs a lot more educating on issues and has a greater hurdle to clear to convince voters that she actually understands the challenges that the United States faces and can articulately formulate policies to address those challenges.

Palin has a long way to go to un-Couric herself in the eyes of the nation.

In a recent interview with GOP hopeful Newt Gingrich, he laid it out best when it came to Palin's chances; "Is she willing to do the kind of development of national issues and development of a national profile that would be required? She is a celebrity in her own right. She is probably the most successful figure in the party right now, and she's a formidable figure. I think to go from there to becoming a national leader would take a significant amount of work."

Polls have consistently showed that while Palin is popular among the Republican base, she has high negatives with everyone else. History shows that the race for President can't be won by appealing solely to the GOP base. Palin will need to attract independents as well as moderate Republicans; the same voters she chased away in 2008.

And unlike running for VP, Palin won't have the luxury of being shielded from the media and only having to prep for one debate.

The primary race will be grueling and the debates will be endless. With the Iowa caucus scheduled for the first week in January 2012, that doesn't leave Palin much time to get schooled. And since returning from the 2008 Presidential campaign trail, Palin has done little to improve herself or her image.

Last month I sat down with a former MSNBC reporter, Matt Berger, who is now writing a book on Palin's Vice Presidential campaign. Over coffee at a local Starbucks, he said that after the November election he sought the counsel of one of the GOP's top strategist.

"What does Sarah Palin have to do to be viable in 2012," he asked.

The consultant listed off three things: Return to Alaska and keep her head down. Show she can lead by bringing people together and scoring some policy wins. Educate herself on the issues to prove the media's portrayal of her was untrue.

Unfortunately for Palin, she has managed to accomplish none of the above.

Palin has been in self destruct mode since her election in 2006. While alternating between public pissing matches and public relation nightmares, Palin has done little more than reinforce skeptics claims that she lacks intelligence and diplomacy.

She picked fights with the media, where after saying she loved the media, wished she had more interaction with them and was completely prepped for the Couric interview to her interview two months later with the conservative version of Michael Moore, John Ziegler, where she chastised the media and said she pleaded with the McCain camp not to make her answer the bell and go a second round with Couric.

She picked fights with lawmakers during this years legislative session where her startling lack of leadership drew heated criticism from members of her own political party. The sordid affair culminated in Palin becoming the first governor in Alaska history to have her Attorney General nominee rejected. 

She even picked fights with her own family members. In September when news broke about her pregnant teenage daughter, Palin paraded the father on stage to reinforce her family values to the nation while using the two as roll models for teen pregnancy. Seven months later, Palin was in the press calling the father a liar and saying her daughter made a mistake by hooking up with him.

In return, Palin can look forward to an inevitable tell all book penned by the young Mr. Levi Johnston about his relationship with the Palin's and all of the assorted details in order to monetize his fifteen minutes of fame.  

However, regardless of Palin's challenges on the national stage, they pale in comparison to what she faces if she sticks around for another term as Alaska's Governor. 

2010: The Main Reason Palin Bails Out

Between 2010 and 2014, Palin's much vaunted natural gas pipeline plan will fail and Alaska will continue to burn cash from savings due to a combination of low oil prices, higher government costs and declining production.

With regards to AGIA and Palin's fraudulent claim she took on big oil to build the gas pipeline, which garnered her critical acclaim on the campaign trail; well don't look now but the signs of failure that many of us predicted two years ago are beginning to show.

The recent news that TransCanada has begun the pre-file process with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) made for a nice read, but the truth behind the story reveals the desperation within the Palin administration.

According to TransCanada's web site, their schedule for FERC pre-filing wasn't supposed to occur until 2011 and their official AGIA application puts the timeline for undertaking pre-filing well after their proposed 2010 open season.

So why would TransCanada move their FERC pre-filing up two years? The answer is pressure from the Palin administration.

The Palin brains behind the AGIA dream, DNR Commissioner Tom Irwin and Marty Rutherford, forced TransCanada to move up their pre-filing to save face. Both Irwin and Rutherford complained that TransCanada was moving too slow and not hiring enough Alaskans.

In fact most of the money, which is being matched 50/50 by state dollars, is reportedly being spent in Calgary. Meanwhile the competing project, Denali, is spending more money, making more progress and hiring more Alaskans.   

With TransCanada's open season scheduled for July 2010 sure to fail, that would land right in the middle of a re-election campaign. Not so good timing eh?

Meanwhile, the appointment of Harry Noah in February to work on developing cost estimates for an in-state gas pipeline is a direct admission that Palin finally understands that her dreams of achieving a legacy of a gas pipeline with TransCanada and AGIA will not to be realized. One lawmaker told me directly that Noah informed the governor personally that AGIA will not work.

Sources inside the Palin administration say that Irwin and Rutherford are so upset with Palin's change of direction that they aren't even on speaking terms with Noah as he tries to evaluate in-state gas potential. This is unfortunate, as Noah appears to be the only voice of reason in an administration that has refused to pull up from this nose dive called AGIA. 

This is all one big cluster-scrum and neither the big gas line or in-state gas will be economically viable without significant subsidies from the state or the abandonment of Palin's AGIA.

As Southcentral Alaska gets closer to that magical 2013 time frame when natural gas in Cook Inlet is projected to dwindle to the level of grave concern, Palin isn't going to want to be anywhere near the drivers seat of state government. 

What this all means is that if Palin seeks another term as governor, her failed energy policies will be clear as day half way through her second term, thus turning the lights out on her reputation as an energy expert.

If Palin decides not to seek re-election, she preserves the one tool she has used so effectively as governor; she can simply shift blame to someone else, in this case, the next governor.

Energy isn't the only area where Palin is facing tremendous exposure. Alaska's fast growing senior demographic will continue to put strains on Alaska's health care system and so far Palin has done little more than create two different task forces to study health care. 

In addition, bad business decisions made as a result of cronyism will be forced to the surface. This includes the Agriculture Board, where the granting of questionable state loans to the Valley Creamery, a local dairy run by Palin's friends and neighbors, will finally come home to roost when the creamery defaults on hundreds of thousands in government bail outs they never should have been given.

The Strategy...The Prediction

There is a growing feeling among politicos that Palin for obvious reason, will not seek re-election .

The lure of the big city lights (lets face it, once you've flown in your own jet, it's hard to return to coach), the petty fights she has picked with a legislature she will have to deal with at least one more year, her lack of leadership and refusal to make any decisions what so ever with regards to governing Alaska. Hell, she has shown her incompetence in her own family life, let alone the life of the state and it's people.

Strategically Palin faces the problem that as soon as she indicates there won't be a second Palin term, she'll become a lame duck in designer glasses.

Best to play coy when asked about future plans and say, "Just tryin' to get through this term to move Alaska forward, tryin' to do what's best for Alaska," yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.

Meanwhile, Sean Parnell will quietly begin raising money under the guise of running for re-election for Light Guv. He has been a loyal soldier for Palin and would surely have an inside track for her endorsement. More than likely, Palin will help Parnell raise money.

Palin will then wait until the end of next years legislative session to make any announcement. If she announces she won't seek re-election, she'll throw her support to Parnell.

While Parnell's name has been mentioned as a possible Attorney General nominee, that would preclude Parnell from running for office. As a state employee, Parnell would have to resign his position before he filed to run and begin raising money for his campaign.

Since the Attorney General is an appointed position, and new governor's like to appoint their own people, if Parnell accepts the AG post from Palin, he could be facing a short stay.

Just like the 1982 song by the Clash, the risks for Palin are huge either way she goes.

"If she goes there will be trouble, if she stays there will be double."

If she goes there will be trouble, because she is unelectable in 2012. A Palin candidacy will collapse under the weight of the competitive pressures as she'll be fair game for fellow Republicans during the primary battles. With the GOP looking for someone to compete against Obama in 2012, they're not getting to the dance with Palin and her Dan Quayle brand of baggage.

If she stays there will be double, because all of the short sighted economic policies she has bet the state's future on, will come up snake eyes making for a rough four years. 

Since Palin has alienated most all legislative Democrats, if she finds economic religion during a second term and tries to modify her ill conceived policies like ditching AGIA or reducing production taxes, Dems will block her attempts. Imagine, the same votes that helped Palin adopt these bad policies will be the same ones who make her live with them. 

The state's predictable economic challenges between 2010 and 2014 will dim Palin's national spotlight and her stock will plunge.

Now that we've all come to realize that Palin can't survive without the national media attention, after all, it's why she's spent so much time blowing her own horn rather than actually governing; she really has no choice but to leave home and try her solo act on the road.

Given the risk of exposure Palin faces in a second term, I predict she will bail out and leave the next governor to clean up her mess. 

 

Read Nore 

(4/15/09) On Tuesday, Governor Sarah Palin responded to an olive branch offered by Juneau Mayor Bruce Bothelo by breaking it in two and then shaking it back at him. We have officially reached meltdown status by Alaska's diva governor.

Yesterday Bothelo attempted to break the six week old stalemate to fill Juneau's vacant State Senate seat by proposing a candidate that was highly qualified and embraced by both Democrats and Republicans.

Dennis Egan, who is a former Juneau Mayor and the son of a former Alaska governor, was forwarded to Palin for consideration to replace Democrat Kim Elton who resigned his seat to take a job with the Obama administration.

In a bizarre response, Palin submitted three names for consideration, to Senate Democrats including two of whom had already been rejected just last week and a third who wasn't even a registered Democrat until just recently.

Over the last two weeks, a governor who is used to always getting things her way, has been beaten back like the coastal shoreline of Kivalina.

Between her families dirty laundry being aired on national television, to her own staff and legislators disproving her cries of wolf regarding strings attached to federal stimulus monies, to criticism that she has been absent without leadership during the legislative session, Palin has begun to act more like Ronald McDonald than Ronald Reagan.

Two weeks ago she cancelled a scheduled meeting with lawmakers to talk about the stimulus package, then proceeded to put out a press release saying they were the ones that cancelled the meeting.

Last week, the father of her grandson Levi Johnston appeared on national television revealing intimate family details. In response, the governor called the young man a liar and then said her daughter made a mistake in hooking up with him.

Ouch.

After all, this was a young man she paraded on to the national stage as her future son in law to help her with damage control regarding her family values image and then just as quickly kicked him to the curb.

Throughout the week, Palin was battered in committee testimony by both her own staff and lawmakers as they discovered that the governor was playing politics about the federal stimulus package and the strings she warned of didn't exist. 

Both of her selections to fill the empty Juneau Senate seat were rejected and all of her huffing and puffing about a questionable 22 year old legal opinion that she said raised issues about the confirmation process drew as much fire from Republicans as it did from Democrats. 

Later in the week, she stormed into the office of the Speaker of the House and proceeded to rip a staffer to shreds because he printed out a story about her planned trip to Indiana that had been posted on the Anchorage Daily News website.

five, four, three, two, one....

This week has been just as rough. Yesterday she was criticized by both Republicans and Democrats for leaving on a self serving fundraising trip to Indiana, paid for by her political action committee, all with only a few days left in the regular session.

Last night on Jay Leno, the same guy who gave Palin her national bonafides by naming her his VP running mate, all but snubbed her when asked about potential contenders for 2012.

"We have, I'm happy to say, a lot of voices out there," John McCain told host Jay Leno before listing Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Utah Gov. Jim Huntsman, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.

"There are a lot of governors out there who are young and dynamic," said the Arizona senator.

McCain then quickly joked, "I've left out somebody's name and I'm going to hear about it."

Today, lawmakers rejected her plan to cut $93 million from Alaska's schools and replace the money with stimulus money.

Palin has become almost schizophrenic about the entire stimulus package. She held a press conference last month to announce she would reject a 1/3 of the money due to federal strings. The next day she immediately started to backtrack.

Then Palin said the state wouldn't take the money because it would add to the national debt. Then she said the state would take the money if it could use it to replace state funds that were already budgeted. 

"It seems to me that is not the point of the stimulus. The point of the stimulus is new jobs and to encourage the economy and it is not to replace monies you were going to spend anyway," said Gary Stevens, the Republican President of the Senate.

Also today, Politico.com released a poll today of 1,000 registered voters to guage their feelings on politicians they trust to solve the problems facing the United States.

The poll showed Palin attracted the highest percentage of those who did not trust her at all to identify the right solutions, topping Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi 33 percent to 32 percent.

And if all this wasn't enough, the Associated Press reported today that more Palin family dirty laundry was being aired out in public, this time by her father.

In the issue of Us Weekly magazine to be released Friday, Chuck Heath says Levi Johnston is capitalizing on national interviews but not spending money on Tripp, the nearly 4-month-old son of Johnston and Bristol Palin, the governor's 18-year-old daughter.

Heath says the 19-year-old Johnston "has not contributed anything" to Tripp's care. Heath says he wishes Johnston would "take some of this money he's making and buy some diapers with it."

We have meltdown.

(2/27/09) In response to the recent settlement with the personnel board over state paid travel expenses for her family, Governor Palin's office has begun asking those who extend an invitation for the governor to attend a function, "Is the first family invited?"

Is the First Family invited?: *
Yes
No

However, anyone extending an invitation to the governor might have cause to worry that if they check the box no, the governor might choose not to attend. 

Part of the disagreement over whether a family travel expense qualifies for state reimbursement has been about the degree of benefit the state received from paying for airfare, in this case for the governor's children to travel.

The question of whether the family is invited goes to the heart of the "state benefit" threshold. If the family is invited, then the argument could be made that it is a state benefit and the state should reimburse for the family members airfare.

I'm not quite sure where this "family travel protocol" theory came about, but it fails to pass the taxpayer straight face test.

Why should taxpayers ever have to pay for any governor's child to travel to an event.

When this story first broke back in October, former Governor Tony Knowles stated that his children never took state paid trips, saying he couldn't ever imagine when it would have been appropriate to do so at taxpayer expense.

In her press release announcing the settlement, Palin once again presents the issue as a simple Hobson's choice. It's a big state and she doesn't think she should have to choose between visiting communities and spending time with her family.

“This is a big state, and I am obligated to – and intend to – keep Alaskans informed and meet with them as much as I can, from Barrow to Marshall to Ketchikan. At the same time, I am blessed to have a large and loving family, and the discharge of my duties should not prevent me from spending time with them. I will do so in accordance with the upcoming rewrite of regulations concerning travel expenses, and despite those who would crimp me from fulfilling either my obligations to the state or my obligations to my family,” Palin writes in her press release dated February 24,2009.

But once again, Palin frames it as an "I'm being picked on again" moment.

The fact is nobody is forcing her to choose between either fulfilling her obligations to the state or the spending time with her family.

If the governor wants to take her kids to Philadelphia for five days, fine.

However taxpayers shouldn't have to pick up the cost of their round trip airfare and five nights at the Ritz Carlton.

Is that so unfair?

    The Memo

In an interview I did for blog a few months ago, I spoke with a former employee in the governor's office. He told me that early on in Palin's administration, her staff was telling her that she was on thin ice trying to claim reimbursement for her children's travel expenses.

A memo was recently unearthed, (attached) by former Attorney General Greg Renkes which clearly states that travel on the state's King Air for those traveling on non-official business should have to reimburse the state for the cost of a coach ticket.

It would seem that if the rules pertaining to who pays on the state plane have been hashed out, those same rules would apply to the state paying for commercial air travel. 

The Renkes memo which was originally issued in September of 2004, was re-released in March of 2007, at the same time according to my source, the governor's staff had raised the issue about the state paying for the children's travel. 

To see the Renkes memo: Click attached pdf.

The governor's email invite page: http://www.gov.state.ak.us/gov_eventinvite.php

(2/4/09) From the sound of his press release, Representative Mike Hawker (R-Anchorage), Co-Chair of the House Finance Committee, was not very impressed by Governor Sarah Palin's proposed $268 million in budget cuts.

While he thanked the governor for offering lawmakers a more realistic forecast for the price of oil in both fy2009 and fy2010, he questioned the substance of her budget cuts.

The governor had predicted the state would end up with a $440 million budget gap at the end of fiscal year 2009, which ends June 30, 2009. The estimate was based on a projection of $62 per barrel oil.

Today, the governor honored Rep. Hawker's December request to revisit her unrealistic price forecast and amended her price forecast to $40 per barrel which will leave the state $1.65 billion in the hole for fy2009.

A far throw from the $440 deficit she forecasted just six weeks ago.

For the fy2010 budget which the governor introduced in December and begins on July 1, 2009, she projected a price per barrel of $74.41. Today the governor's revenue department amended that amount to $37 for the first quarter of fy2010 and $43 for the second quarter of fy2010.

According to the legislatures finance division, if oil averages $50 per barrel in fy2010, the state will face a $2 billion deficit. At $40 per barrel, it will balloon to $3 billion.

Hawker thanked the governor for her revised projection. "The governor's fy09 supplemental request is good in that it recognizes the realistic oil price projections for the coming year, averaging $40 per barrel through June."

However Hawker raised questions about Palin's proposed cuts as well he should.

The proposed cuts are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. While the public will consistently hear the figure $268 million, it's pure hocus pocus.

First, $200 million of that amount reflects lowering the estimate of the amount of oil and gas exploration credits that were going to be paid for economic development on the North Slope.

The credits are a mix of exploration and development incentives for producers and other companies, that were created with the passage of the governor's ACES tax increase. 

There are only two potential explanations for lowering the estimates of oil and gas tax credits: Either the state hasn't been successful in attracting as much economic development on the North Slope, or the administration has simply pushed the amount off into the fy2010 budget with the belief that companies who qualify for the tax credits will claim them later rather than sooner.

Either way it's not a good thing.

Again, fewer tax credits, translates into fewer investment dollars,  which translates into fewer opportunities to add production. Or, the tax credits will come out the same and we haven't reduced anything just simply put off the day of accounting for them until later. 

The bottom line is that $200 million of the $268 million in cuts is not a real cut.

The next big chunk of proposed savings is the removal of a $50 million placeholder in the budget. This simply represents an accounting switch, not a real cut in appropriations.

In fact, Rep. Hawker didn't even acknowledge the $50 million placeholder in his press release, instead referring to the governor's proposed cuts equaling $218 million.

"The apparent reduction of $218 million is real, but we have to look at the components," Hawker wrote.

Along with the oil & gas tax credit reduction, which Hawker called, "not a reduction," he pointed out that another $15 million was a reduction in Medicaid authority that was not going to be spent because it was over authorized.

Hawker went to write, "You factor in those two items and you've got a net-zero supplemental on a general fund basis. In that net zero, the administration has about $17 million in unallocated reductions."

What Hawker is referring to is last year after signing the FY09 budget, Palin promised to cut another $20 million out of this years budget. So far, no specific cuts have been proposed.

For instance, the governor's supplemental budget proposes a $1.1 million cut to the Department of Administration. But under the explanation of specifically where the cuts will come from it only offers the following glittering generality:

"Departments have implemented savings plans and this unallocated reduction will allow commissioners to apply the reduction to these specific components in which the savings will be achieved."   

Ahhh, if the "specific components in which the savings will be achieved" have been identified by the implementation of savings plans by the departments, why aren't the specific components identified? In short; why are the cuts unallocated?

Hawker's press release raised the same issue in a more diplomatic way:

"I don't think the finance committees are going to be comfortable with unallocated reductions. We're going to be looking for a specific statement of policy from the governor and where she intends to actually take those reductions," Hawker ended his press release saying.

I bet you never thought $268 million could mean so little.

(1/29/09) My Inbox has been abuzz over the last twenty four hours since Governor Sarah Palin announced the formation of her own political action committee (PAC) named sarahpac.

Who were the senders?

Angry lawmakers who say that Palin is taking false credit on her self congratulatory PAC website, claiming accomplishments that she had little or nothing to do with. However Palin's overreach shouldn't surprise anyone.

After all this is a person who stood in front of 70 million Americans and said she was building the "$40 billion dollar natural gas pipeline." She continued to repeat the lie on the campaign trail, even though when she first said it back in August at a press conference, her Revenue Commissioner grabbed her arm and corrected her.

This is also the person who quickly forgot that in 2006, not only did she support the Ketchikan Bridge, but she advocated that we build it sooner rather than later so we could take advantage of federal funds brought home by former Senator Ted Stevens. But yet went on to tell Americans she said "thanks, but no thanks."

Still, lawmakers who have done the heavy lifting on the issues that Palin is now taking credit for are burning. On the site (www.sarahpac.com) a page lists Palin's supposed accomplishments.

"Under her leadership as Governor, Alaska has invested $5 billion in state savings, overhauled education funding, and implemented the Senior Benefits Program that provides support for low-income older Alaskans," the narrative boasts.

However Palin had very little if anything to do with any of these issues.

First it was the legislature that has the power of appropriations and they were the ones responsible for depositing $5 billion in state savings. Palin had nothing to do with the deposit. 

Second, the overhaul of Alaska's education funding was completed by the Legislative Task Force on School Funding, chaired by Representative Mike Hawker. In fact Palin contributed nothing to the overhaul with the exception of adopting the task force's recommendations and then putting her name on the legislation.

Third, if anything at all, Palin is entitled to some blame - not credit -  as the senior benefits program failed to pass during the regular session because the lack of leadership on her part.

In 2007, Rep. Mike Hawker introduced HB198 which strengthened and extended the Senior Care program. The bill included a provision that would have removed any mention of the longevity bonus from Alaska's statutes. On the House floor, a fight occurred between those who wanted to keep the language and those who didn't.

The bill was unceremoniously pulled from the floor before a vote on final passage killing the program. Meanwhile, Palin remained silent on the sidelines allowing the bill to die.

In short, almost 7,000 of Alaska's neediest seniors were put at risk because a lack of leadership from Palin on the issue.

On June 27, 2007, the day after the special session on Senior Benefits, former Speaker of the House and now respected co-author of Bradners' Alaska Legislative Digest, Mike Bradner, wrote a stinging analysis of the lack of leadership Palin showed on the issue.

“Palin likes to play with issues publicly, but not work at them”, Bradner wrote. “Palin likes to just sort of muse about issues. But she seems unwilling to get down and dirty in a dogfight. She did nothing when she could have to salvage senior care, when it would have been easy and cost less.

In fact, after criticizing the legislature for spending too much on one time expenditures, Palin never once said how she would pay for the new $20 million per year senior benefit package that she originally introduced at a cost of $10 million per year.

Bradner went on to write, she “seems, at least so far, unwilling to become involved in legislative issues that are in process (at a time when they can be changed, limited or even stopped)."

But today on her new PAC website, Palin wants credit for a government program that ended up taking longer to get done and ended up costing twice as much.

The sarahpac site also claims, "During her first legislative session, Governor Palin's administration passed two major pieces of legislation - an overhaul of the state's ethics laws and a competitive process to construct a gas pipeline."

Democrats would argue that they did all of the heavy lifting on the ethics bill the year before.

In 2006, in the wake of the Greg Renkes debacle, Democrats including Les Gara and Hollis French worked hard on crafting legislation to strengthen ethics laws. Ironically, the bill was killed by Republicans who voted against it, who then flipped the following year and voted for it after Palin got elected and ethics suddenly became fashionable.

And the competitive process to construct a gas pipeline?

If you think giving $500 million of taxpayer money to a Canadian Pipeline company who has said publicly that they cannot build the pipeline until their competitors agree to underwrite the cost is a competitive process; then get out your checkbook and write a big check to sarahpac.com.

But where most of us come from, both situations are called throwing good money after bad. Palin's management style: "I can do anything I want until the court says I can't." Which includes hide, delay, obfuscate, lie, cheat, steal (per diem and credit belonging to others), and blame others for anything that goes wrong.

Ms. P's PAC is playing games with the truth.

Read More

Last week we reported on a pending deal being pushed by the Palin administration that had all the signs of a questionable deal being driven by politics and insider payoffs. 

Today Governor Sarah Palin announced that her administration had come to a tentative agreement to sell the Healy Clean Coal Plant to the Golden Valley Electric Association after ten years of legal fighting which saw the state file suit against GVEA in 2005 for $167 million.

Department of Revenue Commissioner Pat Galvin stated that the “Terms of financing, specific sale agreements for the facility and a power sales agreement with all parties must be reached before a start up of HCCP can begin."

Yeah, before you sign that deal....just a few questions.

And we here at andrewhalcro.com try and operate by the old saying; Don't ask questions that you don't already know the answers to.

After tireless research through hundreds of pages of legislative records, GVEA Board minutes, personal financial disclosures, tax returns, campaign donation reports and conversations with key sources... we ask the following questions.

But more importantly, we ask that the Alaska Legislature ask the following questions.

Has anyone from Governor Palin's family benefited from consulting fees or any other monetary compensation from Golden Valley Electric or any legal firm or lobbyist representing GVEA?

Is it true that in January of 2007, Jim Palin, Todd's father and former GM of Matanuska Valley Electric met in Juneau with his daughter in-laws staff (including Mike Tibbles and John Bitney) to advise them not to trust AIDEA in their dispute with GVEA over the Healy plant?

Is it true that Jim Palin through Todd, lobbied to get rid of Mike Barry, AIDEA Chairman and Ron Miller, AIDEA Executive Director because GVEA saw those two as roadblocks to getting the Healy plant for cheap?

Is it true that Tom Irwin lobbied to have the Alaska Energy Authority moved from AIDEA into the Department of Natural Resources?

Is it true that Tom Irwin lobbied Governor Palin in 2007 to replace Ron Miller, AIDEA Director, with Steve Haagenson who was the General Manager of GVEA? It was under Miller, that the litigation against GVEA was instigated.

Is it true that Haagenson hired Irwin when he suddenly quit the Murkowski administration back in November of 2005 after a disagreement over Murkowski's handling of the natural gas pipeline contract?

Is it true that when it was pointed out that bringing Haagenson in driectly from GVEA, who was in litigation with AIDEA over the Healy plant would be a giant conflict of interest, that Irwin pressed the administration to drop the lawsuit so they could hire Haagenson?

Is it true the Attorneys in the Department of Law convinced Palin that this was a bad idea?

Is it true that Irwin then changed tactics and had Galvin appoint John Kelsey, (Marty Rutherfords father) as Chairman of the AIDEA Board and then had Galvin tell AIDEA's staff and lawyers that he was going to settle the clean coal litigation?

Is it true that Irwin played a major role in getting Haagenson hired as the head of the Alaska Energy Authority, a subset of AIDEA?

The big questions regarding Rep. Mike Kelly?

What about Representative Mike Kelly (R-Fairbanks), who like Haagenson, was a former GVEA General Manager before he landed in the legislature?

It was under Kelly's watch as head of GVEA that the electrical co-op became embroiled in the Healy Clean Coal fiasco. It has been hanging around his neck like a dead weight for a decade.

Kelly has long been a steamroller in the legislature when it came to advocating that GVEA should get the Healy plant for cheap.

Even though Kelly was retired, he has maintained an influential role in GVEA operations. According to APOC records, Kelly was paid $75,000 in consulting fees by GVEA as a lawmakers and in 2005 introduced HB163 which would have stripped AIDEA of the Healy plant and effectively given it to GVEA.

Kelly's 2008 APOC report shows significant financial benefits from GVEA.

He reported $120,000 in retirement income and $50,000 in deferred compensation. On GVEA's form 990's for 2005 and 2006, Kelly's deferred compensation is listed at $36,425, but it jumped to $50,000 in 2007. He is also a current board member of a GVEA subsidiary, Alasconnect, for which he claimed $2,000 a year in board fees.

In 2007 after becoming chair of the finance subcommittee for the Department of Commerce budget, Kelly used his position to submit a lengthy set of questions and requests of information for confidential information to AIDEA about the Healy plant agreements with Homer Electric and AIDEA's action regarding the lawsuit against GVEA.

Did Kelly provide this confidential information to GVEA?

After AIDEA sued GVEA in November 2005, GVEA asked the court to order mediation of the dispute. AIDEA argued against the this because they viewed it as a stall tactic to allow Kelly the opportunity to find a way to get GVEA the plant and avoid the litigation.

The court ordered mediation and AIDEA engaged in the process for over two years with GVEA. GVEA's negotiating team assured the mediator that they had the full authority to settle the dispute. At the end of the mediation, AIDEA had negotiated four agreements with GVEA that would allow AIDEA and Homer Electric access to the plant to start operations.

The AIDEA Board signed off on the agreements and they were scheduled to be voted on by the GVEA Board on March 24, 2008. 

The GVEA Board met at 6:00pm on March 24, 2008 in Fairbanks. They went into executive session to discuss the four agreements negotiated by their mediation team. Kelly participated in this executive session even though the legislature was still in session in Juneau. Kelly reportedly told the board not to sign the agreements because he was working with the Palin administration to get a better deal.

Did Kelly share the confidential information he obtained through his legislative office with the GVEA Board?

The GVEA Board came out of executive session and stated they would not sign the agreements their own mediation team had negotiated. The meeting adjourned at 11:15pm, too late for Kelly to catch the flight back to Juneau.

The next day the flight to Juneau on March 25 was late into Juneau. Since Kelly had not filed an excused absence, his lateness to the House floor session was noted in the House Journal.

So did Kelly get legislative per diem for sabotaging the Healy deal?

And oh yeah, one more thing.

You might remember the complaint filed by Andree McLeod last fall against the Palin administration regarding the short cuts taken to get a Fairbanks resident named Tom Lamal hired as a DOT right-of-way agent. Emails from Frank Bailey, Palin's right hand man, showed he was working towards getting the rules changed to get Lamal hired.

As it turns out, Lamal's wife is a GVEA Vice President.

How much more can there be?

There are lots of questions regarding this deal....and the answers are right in front of us if only someone will ask.

Graphic by http://www.mattbors.com/

(1/11/09) This past week has seen a governor whose entire political career has been given life by the media and continues to this day to be promoted and kept on life support by the media, blame the media for all of her troubles. 

On Thursday, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin took time out of her not so busy schedule to put out a press release condeming media coverage of her, including comments she made during an interview with a filmmaker who is doing a documentary on media bias against conservative politicians like Palin.

However for those of us who pay way too much attention to politics, it's impossible to forget a year ago when Governor Palin lectured her fellow female politicos; instead of crying about media coverage, grow up and get over it.

Seems today Palin needs a little reminder of her own advice.

During a Newsweek Women in Leadership event in Los Angeles in March of 2008, this is what Palin had to say about Senator Hillary Clinton's claims that the media was treating her unfairly.

Interviewer: "When you look at coverage. When you listen to the conversations. What do you see?"

Palin: "Well, uh you know, I think fair or unfair, the, and, and I do think it is, is, uhm,  a more concentrated criticism that that Hillary gets on, on, so many fronts. I think that's unfortunate.

But, fair or unfair, I, I think she does herself a disservice, uh, uh to even mention it...really.  I, I mean you got to plow through that. You have to know what you're getting' into. 

Um, which uh uh uh, I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton and to her experience and to her passion for, for changing the status quo also but uh...when I hear a statement like that, um, coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, um you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her...I think, man, that, that doesn't do us any good.

Uh...women in politics; women in general wanting to progress this country. I don't, I don't think it's it bodes well for her a statement like that because; again, fair or unfair, it is there.  I think that's reality.  And I think it's a given.

I think people can just accept that that she is going to be under that sharper microscope. So be it. I mean work harder. Prove yourself to an even greater degree than you're capable; that you're gonna be the uh the best candidate and that, and that of course is what she wants us to believe at this point. 

So-uh,uh it bothers me a little bit hearing, hearing her bring that attention to herself on that level."

Almost a year later, Governor Palin ignores her own advice by issuing a press release complaining about the media coverage of herself. 

Uhh..hey governor, to quote someone you know; "she does herself a disservice, uh, uh to even mention it...really.  I, I mean you got to plow through that. You have to know what you're getting' into." 

In short; grow up and get over it.

Seems like sensible words of advice.

To read the press release regarding media coverage:

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1598