Remember 2000, when Ashcroft lost his bid for Senator to a deceased candidate?
I can’t help but wonder which is worse – losing to a corpse, or losing to a felon?
From the Anchorage Daily News:
Orthodox wisdom should dictate that voters would flee in droves from an incumbent who had just been convicted of felony crimes. But that would grossly underestimate the affection loyalists have for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.
In his home state, the corruption trial of the Senate’s longest serving Republican was not an important element for more than half of voters surveyed in an Associated Press exit poll. One out every three of those voters said it was not factor at all.
I’ve read, but don’t have a handy link to support (a limitation of blogging from an airport) that there is some speculation that the Senate may refuse to seat Stevens, in which case a new Senator would need to be found…and perhaps Palin might seek to start rebuilding her national political aspirations by running for that Senate seat. After all (from a different ADN article):
Even more imponderable are questions about Palin’s future priorities. Will she try to repair her old relationships, or continue as the warrior cheered by a national conservative base? Will her social-conservative allies in Alaska sit quietly on the sidelines, as they did during the first two years of her term? Will Palin be looking ahead at a national race in 2012, or at another term as governor? Or perhaps a run for U.S. Senate? And how will those ambitions affect the choices she makes in the near term?
A full copy of the report is here. The punchline:
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
“The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”
So, Ron Paul’s most loyal supporters have been promising that the Revolution would start any time now. First it was to be the Free State of New Hampshire. No, it was risk-taking Nevada that would throw its support to Ron Paul. No…contrarian Mainers would see the merits of Ron Paul.
Well, now it’s Alaskans. Even the Wall Street Journal (free link) is speculating on how Alaska and Ron Paul might be a match made in…well, the icebox, I suppose:
The libertarian-leaning candidate’s vows to slash federal spending and pull out of Iraq have attracted Mr. Paul a fervent following. While other long-shot candidates have dropped out of the race, Mr. Paul has been able to keep at it and hope for a surprise win because he has raised huge sums of money, largely from individual contributors over the Web.
Some of his more radical ideas, like abolishing taxes and letting people carry firearms in national parks, have kept him from rising above fringe status in most states. In Alaska, where residents don’t pay state income tax and often own guns for hunting and protection, his message has a more concentrated appeal.[...]
Mr. Paul needs all the help he can get. The Texas congressman—who placed third for president in 1988 when he ran as a libertarian—scored a third-place finish in Maine this weekend and a second-place finish in Nevada, with 19% and 14% of the vote, respectively, but has picked up few delegates. Alaska gives him a shot at getting a few more.
While there have been no official polls in Alaska, local pollsters and officials say Mr. Paul could garner at least 10%—and possibly upward of 20%—of the vote. That compares with 4% to 6% of the national vote, according to polls of Republicans.
Like most other libertarian-leaning moderate-minded folks registered as Republicans, I know that Ron Paul isn’t going to win the nomination. I’m voting for him on Super Tuesday only because I think parts of his message merit more attention…but the fact of the matter is that small-government, personal liberty-minded folks don’t really have a home in either of the major parties. We’ll be effectively un- or under-represented in political circles until an effective messenger comes forward.
And, while I welcome Ron Paul’s gospel-preaching…he’s not that messenger.
I realize that many folks would like to see Dr. Paul run as an independent, or for a third party (the Libertarians, the Constitutional Party, or a union ticket of the two). However, I’m not so sure that that’s the best idea (especially with anti-spending McCain currently in the most-likely-to-get-the-GOP-nomination position).
Instead, perhaps interested parties should work towards identifying a better messenger—someone who is respected enough in the country to have credibility, without some of the baggage that Paul carries (e.g., the content of his newsletters, allegations of his affinity towards and with the conspiracy theory crowd), or quite as much emphasis on 19th century failed economic theories?
