Dan Fagan’s PDS-Induced Vision of Sarah Palin

Yesterday, our prayers went out to Dan Fagan as his father struggles with cancer. Today, the gloves come off again.

Fagan has a new screed at the Alaska Standard which really should be included in any case study of Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS). A clear symptom of PDS is the tendency to ascribe base political motives to even good decisions that Gov. Palin makes. Consequently, the PDS sufferer views Palin as evil no matter what she does.

I noted in my biographical sketch of Gov. Palin that some critics actually dismiss her courageous whistle-blowing on the unethical behavior of her own party chairman at the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). They laughably suggest that she quit the AOGCC and turned in her own party chairman in order to make herself look good. That’s like suggesting that a firefighter ran into a burning building to rescue an infant because he knew he would get a medal! The firefighter had no idea whether or not he would survive the fire, and Sarah Palin had no idea whether or not she would survive her whistle-blowing. But the PDS sufferer is impervious to such logic. No matter what Palin does, it’s for base political calculation.

Think about how absurd that is. Let’s put ourselves in the mindset of the PDS sufferer and imagine how he or she views Gov. Palin…

If Palin runs in a marathon, she’s trying to make herself look like a good athlete and is of course pandering to sports fans.

If Palin rejects a pay raise, she’s just grandstanding and trying to make herself look like a fiscally conservative public servant.

If Palin speaks at a rally to elect Saxby Chambliss, she’s ignoring Alaska and preparing for a White House run.

If Palin charges the state for her job related travel expenses, she’s being partisan and wasting money (though she charged much less than her predecessors). If Palin starts a PAC to pay for her political travel expenses, she’s being partisan and ignoring Alaska.

If Palin turns down interview requests from the Lower 48 and declines an invitation to speak at CPAC, she’s dissing conservatives and being a no-show.

If Palin gives a speech to a Right to Life group, she’s sucking up to social conservatives.

If Palin appoints a good solid conservative as attorney general, she’s pandering to a national base (which had never even heard of the guy before).

If Palin rejects over a third of the stimulus money, she is merely pandering to a national audience (though most Alaskans seem to agree with her decision). If Palin were to take all the money, she would be back-tracking and proving herself to be no conservative. If Palin merely invites discussion on the stimulus issue in order to force the proponents of the stimulus to explain how they will fund the unfunded mandates when the federal dollars run out, she is back-tracking — even though she hasn’t changed her position at all, she is merely forcing them to defend theirs.

If Palin breaks up the monopoly that oil producers have on her state by introducing competition into the pipeline project and encouraging a non-producer owned pipeline in order to prevent future monopolies that stymie development for independent producers, she is being anti-business.

If Palin speaks out against corruption in politics and politicians who take bribes from the oil industry, she’s engaging in populist pandering.

If Palin adheres to her state’s constitution and negotiates a fair return on her state’s natural resource for the benefit of all Alaskans, she’s being anti-development — even though her ACES plan rewards new development.

If Palin decides to work with producers to insure financial certainty in order to get them to commit to the TC-Alaska pipeline, she’s suddenly back-tracking from her previous intractable position. Never mind the fact that AGIA recommends the very steps that Gov. Palin is taking in seeking to establish tax certainty before the open season. Never mind the fact that she has promised to do this very thing from the beginning. (She’s back-tracking because Dan Fagan refused to understand her position in the first place. So in his mind, she’s back-tracking now.)

If Palin revokes Exxon’s Pt. Thompson leases because they sat on those oil fields for 30 years without actually developing them, Palin is being anti-development. When she returns some of the leases because Exxon now concretely promises (because they finally have a gun to their heads) to develop these oil fields, Palin is back-tracking due to pressure because she was wrong all along.

This is the weird world of Dan Fagan. His screed ends with this gem:

Well, now it’s time for Palin critics to fear no more and fight to return our state to one that is open for business.

He means open for taking bribes from the oil monopolies that owned Alaska before Palin forced fairness and true free market practices. We’ve talked a lot about corporatism lately — the collusion of big government with big business to the detriment of true free market capitalism. Giant corporations only love free market capitalism when it benefits them. They naturally hate competition when they’re on the receiving end of it. They’re perfectly happy with monopolies and government bailouts when it helps them. That’s what corporatism is all about.

Let me be clear, folks:

Sarah Palin is the anti-corporatist. She is 100% for the free market. She hates monopolies. That makes her “populist” only in the sense that her sentiments are “popular.” It’s not “anti-business” to encourage expandability in a pipeline for future independent developers. It’s not “anti-business” to get a good price for your product. It’s not “anti-business” to demand that oil producers develop the land they hold the leases on or give the leases back and allow the state to give them to some independent developer who will.

Dan Fagan is a monopoly-loving corporatist. There, I’ve said it.

Dan Fagan’s twisted view of Gov. Palin bears almost no relation to reality. It’s as if he lives in the goatee-Spock world where Sarah Palin is Madame Mao. I’m sure he’ll balk at this and claim that we are the ones deluding ourselves. All conspiracy minded people think that way. And Dan is only a few PDS-screeds shy of fully joining the ranks of the crackbrained weirdies.

(15 Posts)

Leave a Reply