[BluntRM]

From where I entered the argument, the implication wasn’t that Gov. Palin was a member, but that she had ties as Gov. and also through her husband. But then that’s without any context as to Alaskan history and it’s a different implication once the discussion of Federal land issues are brought in... still, I’ll google it, but if anyone has anything on hand that points to what x posted that would be great.

[Defiant]

My apologies, I misread your date of signup as 2008, not 2006. We’ve had a lot of October signups here lately, whose purpose seems to be to pose questions designed to sew division on the GOP side.

[x]

I can't say for certain why Todd Palin registered to vote under the AIP label. But it's clear that someone didn't have to be a secessionist or a fringe nut job to vote for the party. Walter Hickel, their nominee in 1990, wasn't either and neither were most of the voters who elected him.

It's also doubtful that Todd Palin was working to achieve some secessionist or radical goal. We know he registered under that party line, but I haven't heard that he attended any meetings or passed out any literature.

Palin was trying to win votes from AIP members but I don't see any evidence that she supported the separatist or extreme views attributed to some of the party's founders. If one regards a group like the AIP as dangerous, is it fair to attack major party politicians for trying to win votes away from such organizations?

If somebody uses this to put down Palin, mention Obama and the socialist "New Party" in Chicago in the 1990s, and some of his other controversial associates. If Palin's barely existent "ties" are regarded as damning, then Obama's more real links would be still more damaging. If Obama's associations are no big deal, why should Palin's more tenuous connections matter?