About That New York Times Story

A few days ago, the New York Times published a widely circulated article titled, “Alaska Democrats See a Palin Legacy They Can Like.” The story focuses on the current predicament Alaska Democrats find themselves in regarding the fight with Governor Parnell’s tax policy. Of course, I find the whole ironic considering it was primarily Democrat operative members of a litigious lynch mob that were responsible for Governor Palin’s early resignation, but I won’t get into that right now.

One of the first things I noticed about the Times piece was that the writer, Kirk Johnson, left out a bunch of important information for his national audience. No surprise there. When the media isn’t outright distorting facts about Governor Palin, they’re omitting them.

For starters, Johnson uses Andrew Halcro as his go-to source for the story. The Times even used a picture of Halcro to accompany the piece. Longtime readers of C4P know who Halcro is, but most people have never heard of the man. So, why did Johnson leave out the fact that Andrew Halcro was an opponent of Governor Palin’s in the 2006 Alaska Gubernatorial race, and subsequently lost the election to her? How is that not important? The man has an axe to grind, and he’s been grinding it to anyone who would listen for years.

Another thing that bothered me was that Johnson never gave any credit to Governor Palin for her part in exposing the corruption that was taking place in government before she took office. He wrote:

Ms. Palin was elected governor in 2006 on a pledge to clean house after revelations of oil-industry corruption in the State Legislature, and in 2007 oversaw a sweeping overhaul of policy that included big new taxes on oil profits.

Once again, his national audience is only given part of the story. Nothing about how Governor Palin risked her neck exposing her own party for being in bed with the oil companies. Nothing about resigning her post atop the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) so that Alaskans would know what was happening. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

The way Johnson framed the tax debate was also a little troubling. Alaskan Barbara Haney (who agrees with Parnell that ACES did need some changes) made some great points about it over at 147 Degrees West. She wrote:

It is these Alaskan Democrats like Hollis French that Andrew Halcro also attempts to use to besmirch Palin. He is playing off two sides to his own advantage, or so he thinks.  The Times played into his effort to paint Palin as a socialist and dip her in “Hollis French dung.” He believes it vindicates him and perhaps set himself up to run for Governor. Halcro is hardly the person I would ask about Palin’s legacy. For Governor Palin’s legacy is not ACES, but the philosophy that ACES enshrined. That is her legacy.  That philosophy was never repealed, nor can it be. I rather doubt it could be understood by an elitist like Halcro. What is really her legacy is far greater than a legislative agenda. The agenda was something of the moment that worked in that part of history. The historical circumstances changed that required the policy to change, but the philosophy of Alaskans owning their resources cannot be repealed.

Her legacy is that the government belongs to the people, and that the people decide what is important… Her legacy is that Alaska is owned by the people of Alaska. It is a rejection of colonialism and the assertion of self-determination.

Her notion was that Alaska was a sovereign state owned by the people.  The people chose to be part of  the United States. It was not a colony to be governed by a distant land or exploited by multinationals and state policy should reflect the right of the people and their assertion of the right of statehood detailed in article 4 of the U.S Constitution. That was the Palin Legacy.

Haney also has some great closing words to the Times about Halcro:

Sorry, New York Times, but you missed the mark on this one. Palin is no socialist, even if Halcro wants to make that case. Besides, to consider Halcro an Alaskan is absolutely ludicrous. Yes, he has an Alaskan address and yes, his body is here, but his mind in somewhere in Seattle. He married a Planned Parenthood activist. He has never held a gun, or so he claims. He also claims to own a pair of jeans, but no one has seen him in them. He might have gone north of the Alaska range a few times to visit the Chamber of Commerce, but generally trips outside of Anchorage are beneath him.  There is no evidence he has ever fished, hunted, or eaten food that did not come from a grocery store. He is like a military wife condemned to Alaska who hides in the Anchorage bowl for fear that the sap of a tree or some wild flower might touch him. Next time, the Times might want to ask someone who is actually an Alaskan.

Or perhaps just someone who hasn’t lost a major election to the subject of the article.

 



(636 Posts)

Leave a Reply