Todd Palin: Shadow Governor?

[General Zod]

Sauce.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (CNN) -- He's the man Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin affectionately calls her "first dude."
Todd and Sarah Palin

Todd Palin, who grew up in Alaska, is a former oilfield worker and world-record holding snowmobile racer.

Todd Palin was introduced to the nation at the Republican National Convention as a blue-collar oil worker, a laid-back father of five and a world-record-holding snowmobile racer.

Todd and Sarah met in high school at a basketball game and eloped in 1988, six years after graduation. Todd grew up in Alaska and is part Eskimo. He's an avid outdoorsman and champion of the Iron Dog snowmobile race.

He's worked in Alaska's oil industry and as a fisherman. But in recent times, he's had another role. Some call him the "Shadow Governor."

In government circles and among the family's acquaintances, Todd Palin is known as his wife's greatest adviser and most loyal protector. One family friend said, "Todd is incredibly supportive and is willing to do whatever it takes to help Sarah."

Todd may appear quiet, almost shy, but he's made quite an impression on his wife's running mate, Sen. John McCain. On the campaign trail this month in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, McCain said, "He's not afraid of Washington, D.C.! He can take them on!"

Alaskans interviewed by CNN say Todd Palin has plenty of influence.

He's not on the state payroll, but lawmakers say he is a central figure in his wife's policy agenda.

Stephen Branchflower is one man who certainly thinks so. Branchflower was hired by the Alaska Legislature to investigate Governor Palin's firing of the state's top cop - Walt Monegan - and whether the Palins pressured him to fire the governor's former brother-in-law, trooper Mike Wooten.

Sarah Palin has said Wooten repeatedly threatened her family amid a bitter divorce from her sister. She claims that he even threatened to kill her father, an accusation that Wooten denies.

Branchflower wants to subpoena Todd Palin because the governor's husband "has spoken to numerous government employees. ... He's such a central figure to the events."

Sarah Palin has denied exerting any pressure to have anyone fired. Todd Palin hasn't spoken publicly about the case, but his wife's attorney said Thursday Mr Palin would not comply with the subpoena request. The McCain campaign said the Legislative Council was no longer carrying out "a legitimate investigation because it has been subjected to complete partisanship and does not operate with the authority that it had at the time of its initial authorization."

CNN has seen thousands of e-mails released this year from the governor's office that show that Todd Palin was copied on hundreds of them. The topics of the e-mails ranged from public criticism of Sarah Palin to her meetings with corporate leaders.

Andrew Halcro, who ran as an independent against Sarah Palin for governor in 2006 and is a critic of the Palins, wants to know why Todd Palin was being copied on state correspondence.

Halcro wrote a blog post about Todd Palin called "Shadow Governor" and says, "Todd plays the role as kind of the fixer."

Even Halcro found himself the subject of e-mails that Todd Palin was copied on. He wants to know why.

"This whole process, and the whole string of e-mails, to me really raise some red flags," Halcro said.

But campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton explained, "There is spousal privilege in that the governor is asking him to print them off or take care of business."

Alaska lawmakers say Todd Palin is a fixture at the state Legislature. So much so, some say they've joked about getting buttons that read, "What would Todd do?"

One of those lawmakers is Lyda Green, a Republican and state Senate president who is not friends with the Palins.

"I had a meeting I requested with the governor. ... I was particularly surprised that Todd was there. I had never seen a spouse stay in the room through the meeting."

The campaign said, "Todd's role has not been inappropriate."

The campaign also confirms that Todd Palin has taken two trips with state commissioners to survey Alaskan mines and one to survey part of the proposed route for a natural gas pipeline, his wife's top goal. The state paid for those trips, according to the campaign, because they were considered "state business" since Todd Palin is trying to expand Alaska's work force.

Now he's spending plenty of time out of state -- at his wife's side -- as she criss-crosses the country. A far cry from juggling the cooking and carpooling for their five children.

Juicy bits bolded. So not only does her husband have carte blanche to ignore subpoenas when it's politically convenient, he gets to have a say in official meetings and other business expeditions for the state even though he's not an elected official whatsoever? Makes you wonder exactly what he'd be doing if this woman got into the White House. Oh, and if he's spending all this time abroad who's helping with their children, by the way? Especially the one with Down's syndrome?

[Knife]

Well, besides being cute, I don't care for Sarah Palin but really, you shouldn't be surprised that hubby is in the loop. Also, he works for BP, shit didn't see his bias coming.

[Sarevok]

I would say something witty involving Asif "Mr Ten Percent" Zardari (Benazir's husband) but one can still hope America is better than that...

[Axis Kast]

Well, besides being cute, I don't care for Sarah Palin but really, you shouldn't be surprised that hubby is in the loop.

I agree. Isn't it an easy assumption that spouses are usually consulted by their partner when making tough choices, whether in the Oval Office, or any other?

Also, he works for BP, shit didn't see his bias coming.

Actually, direct from Wikipedia's article on Palin herself:

"In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.[80] This negated a deal by the previous governor to grant the contract to a coalition including BP."

Looks like Todd doesn't have quite the pull you're implying. Or, Sarah Palin is more principled than you'd like to admit.

[Ender]

Well, besides being cute, I don't care for Sarah Palin but really, you shouldn't be surprised that hubby is in the loop.

I agree. Isn't it an easy assumption that spouses are usually consulted by their partner when making tough choices, whether in the Oval Office, or any other?

Also, he works for BP, shit didn't see his bias coming.

Actually, direct from Wikipedia's article on Palin herself:

"In March 2007, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) as the new legal vehicle for building a natural gas pipeline from the state's North Slope.[80] This negated a deal by the previous governor to grant the contract to a coalition including BP."

Looks like Todd doesn't have quite the pull you're implying. Or, Sarah Palin is more principled than you'd like to admit.

Or that wikipedia is full of shit. I wonder which is more likely. Excuse me, I'm going to go edit that section into a discussion of how bacon and eggs are tasty.

[General Zod]

Well, besides being cute, I don't care for Sarah Palin but really, you shouldn't be surprised that hubby is in the loop.

I agree. Isn't it an easy assumption that spouses are usually consulted by their partner when making tough choices, whether in the Oval Office, or any other?

When has any President ever had their spouse sit in on official meetings? It's one thing to consult them off the clock, another to have them actively sit in when they're not an elected official. Being able to flout a subpoena rather flagrantly is also somewhat concerning.

[Axis Kast]

When has any President ever had their spouse sit in on official meetings? It's one thing to consult them off the clock, another to have them actively sit in when they're not an elected official. Being able to flout a subpoena rather flagrantly is also somewhat concerning.

Didn't Bill Clinton award Hillary certain projects during his term? I don't remember too many folks complaining.

Or that wikipedia is full of shit. I wonder which is more likely. Excuse me, I'm going to go edit that section into a discussion of how bacon and eggs are tasty.

Prove that the new contract was more favorable to BP, then. The Wikipedia article is sourced, you know.

[General Zod]

When has any President ever had their spouse sit in on official meetings? It's one thing to consult them off the clock, another to have them actively sit in when they're not an elected official. Being able to flout a subpoena rather flagrantly is also somewhat concerning.

Didn't Bill Clinton award Hillary certain projects during his term? I don't remember too many folks complaining.

Wrong. There was quite a lot of criticism over Hillary taking active role in his official activities.

[Ender]

Or that wikipedia is full of shit. I wonder which is more likely. Excuse me, I'm going to go edit that section into a discussion of how bacon and eggs are tasty.

Prove that the new contract was more favorable to BP, then. The Wikipedia article is sourced, you know.

No, see, the claim that is isn't is yours, not mine. That means the burden of proof is on you. I just called you out on the need to actually do so. So how about you fucking do it.

[TimothyC]

When has any President ever had their spouse sit in on official meetings? It's one thing to consult them off the clock, another to have them actively sit in when they're not an elected official. Being able to flout a subpoena rather flagrantly is also somewhat concerning.

Best example would be Woodrow Wilson.

[General Zod]

When has any President ever had their spouse sit in on official meetings? It's one thing to consult them off the clock, another to have them actively sit in when they're not an elected official. Being able to flout a subpoena rather flagrantly is also somewhat concerning.

Best example would be Woodrow Wilson.

I don't suppose you can actually provide actual examples of when his wife sat in on meetings instead of just throwing out a name?

[That NOS Guy]

I don't suppose you can actually provide actual examples of when his wife sat in on meetings instead of just throwing out a name?

IIRC, she pretty much ran his life after he had a stroke.

[General Zod]

I don't suppose you can actually provide actual examples of when his wife sat in on meetings instead of just throwing out a name?

IIRC, she pretty much ran his life after he had a stroke.

Okay, so at least 2 examples. One of which was due to a legitimate medical condition, the other one received heavy amounts of scorn. Not seeing anything that justifies Palin's use of her husband in that fashion that shouldn't be treated with suspicion.

[Ender]

You had the claims about Nancy Regean basically controlling everything, but I don't know what if any support there is for them.

[Axis Kast]

Wrong. There was quite a lot of criticism over Hillary taking active role in his official activities.

All right.

Next question. Was Bill Clinton's decision to award Hillary the responsibility for health care a grievous mistake?

No, see, the claim that is isn't is yours, not mine. That means the burden of proof is on you. I just called you out on the need to actually do so. So how about you fucking do it.

For the second time: the Wikipedia article includes citations confirming that Palin abrogated one contract and signed another. BP was a benefactor in the first instance.

You then made the contention that this is untrue, arguing that the Wiki article was invalid simply because it was Wikipedia, and ignoring sourcing (probably proving you didn't even read it).

Here is an article referred to via the Wiki piece, proving my point.

Okay, so at least 2 examples. One of which was due to a legitimate medical condition, the other one received heavy amounts of scorn.

A legitimate medical condition? Let's be fair here. Wilson's VP should have taken over, not his wife.

And Todd Palin was in a modest manergerial role with BP. As Palin's apparent eyes and ears, he's at least as qualified to work on energy issues as Hillary was to deal with health care. In both cases, I think, the choices are bad ones, but not devastating.

[General Zod]

All right.

Next question. Was Bill Clinton's decision to award Hillary the responsibility for health care a grievous mistake?

Considering her plan failed, that's somewhat of a non question.

You then made the contention that this is untrue, arguing that the Wiki article was invalid simply because it was Wikipedia, and ignoring sourcing (probably proving you didn't even read it).

So quote and link to the source article instead of the wiki? It's not terribly hard to do.

A legitimate medical condition? Let's be fair here. Wilson's VP should have taken over, not his wife.

My point is that neither case really justifies Palin entrusting her husband with governmental duties.

And Todd Palin was in a modest manergerial role with BP. As Palin's apparent eyes and ears, he's at least as qualified to work on energy issues as Hillary was to deal with health care. In both cases, I think, the choices are bad ones, but not devastating.

Why do they have to be devastating? All that's needed is to show they were poor decisions to make, and that Palin should not be trusted with the kind of responsibility that a VP might be given with her lack of judgment.

[Invictus ChiKen]

So does this mean if the worse happens and somehow Vice President Palin becomes President Palin we will be making jokes about 'President' Todd? As people did with Hilary?

[Ender]

No, see, the claim that is isn't is yours, not mine. That means the burden of proof is on you. I just called you out on the need to actually do so. So how about you fucking do it.

For the second time: the Wikipedia article includes citations confirming that Palin abrogated one contract and signed another. BP was a benefactor in the first instance.

For the second time: Wikipedia is as reliable as "what I just pulled out of my ass". Simply linking to something doesn't make it true because anyone can change anything.

You then made the contention that this is untrue, arguing that the Wiki article was invalid simply because it was Wikipedia, and ignoring sourcing (probably proving you didn't even read it).

Contending that wikipedia is invalid simply because it is wikipedia? Why yes. The reason being so is that I'm not a moron. Next I shall contend that water is wet because it is water. Are you gong to throw a fucking fit about that as well?

Here is an article referred to via the Wiki piece, proving my point.

Only point you have is on your head dumbshit. And hey, it is nice to see you are still a fucking liar.

Palmer said at the bill signing that TransCanada was seeking shipping commitments from natural gas producers including the major North Slope oil producers -- BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil -- which hold leases to most of the North Slope's known natural gas.
...
BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil declined to submit bids for a state license, saying the law had overly rigid mandates that they could not meet.

So BP doesn't own the pipeline (and thus doesn't see the shipping cut) but they still use it to move their goods and see a production cut. So yes, it did benefit BP, just not as much as they wanted. And look at that, the competing plan that they pushed wasn't even competitive because the never even submitted a bid to build it. It is a paper tiger, not another real plan. Wow, that is some integrity there - choosing the only plan available that just happens to greatly benefit the company your husband works for.

Seriously, how do you make it through the day being as stupid as you are? I'd expect you to have choked yourself to death with the sleeves trying to put on a shirt by this point. Have you at least figured out to pull off your underwear before taking a shit? I hope so. If not I'll invest in Depends. I guess this is the "fundamental" of our economy that is still strong - people like you are so frighteningly retarded that they will A) necessitate basic services because they are incapable of managing any aspects of their lives and B) Vote Republican.

[Axis Kast]

Considering her plan failed, that's somewhat of a non question.

Not at all.

What is it you're trying to convince people of here? That appointing the unqualified is bad? Fine. We can all agree.

But I take it that you, and most folks on this board, thought the Clinton years were pretty damn good. So did I. Ultimately, though, he committed the same mistake as Palin -- nepotism. And maybe it's even worse for Clinton; at least Todd Palin has experience dealing with an oil firm.

So quote and link to the source article instead of the wiki? It's not terribly hard to do.

Are you really such small men that you can't go to Wikipedia yourselves and click on the links? Guess so.

Anything to win an argument, right?

So BP doesn't own the pipeline (and thus doesn't see the shipping cut) but they still use it to move their goods and see a production cut. So yes, it did benefit BP, just not as much as they wanted. And look at that, the competing plan that they pushed wasn't even competitive because the never even submitted a bid to build it. It is a paper tiger, not another real plan. Wow, that is some integrity there - choosing the only plan available that just happens to greatly benefit the company your husband works for.

Seriously, how do you make it through the day being as stupid as you are? I'd expect you to have choked yourself to death with the sleeves trying to put on a shirt by this point. Have you at least figured out to pull off your underwear before taking a shit? I hope so. If not I'll invest in Depends. I guess this is the "fundamental" of our economy that is still strong - people like you are so frighteningly retarded that they will A) necessitate basic services because they are incapable of managing any aspects of their lives and B) Vote Republican.

You're missing the point completely. Even if BP gains more than I first contended, the end conclusion is that there isn't any evidence that Todd Palin's professional history influenced the contracting process, which is the contention that Knife originally made.

[Ender]

Are you really such small men that you can't go to Wikipedia yourselves and click on the links? Guess so.

Anything to win an argument, right?

This is really funny. Yeah, we ae the ones who will do anything to win the argument because we don't accept a source known to be a piece of shit... but when the source is shown to be a piece of shit yet again you are still right.

You're missing the point completely. Even if BP gains more than I first contended,

Translation: Even though I repeated false talking points and insisted a bullshit source full of those talking points was right when it was not

the end conclusion is that there isn't any evidence that Todd Palin's professional history influenced the contracting process, which is the contention that Knife originally made.

You are right, setting up a false competition so that you can then take a course of action that directly benefits your husbands corporation is totally not a sign of being corrupt as fuck.

[Axis Kast]

This is really funny. Yeah, we ae the ones who will do anything to win the argument because we don't accept a source known to be a piece of shit... but when the source is shown to be a piece of shit yet again you are still right.

In any argument, you go to the source. If somebody directs you to Wikipedia, it's intellectually puerile to treat that as a stopping point at which you can moan over technicalities. Which is what you have done.

You are right, setting up a false competition so that you can then take a course of action that directly benefits your husbands corporation is totally not a sign of being corrupt as fuck.

Prove that there was false competition. Your apparent claim is that Palin had the bidding process rigged. Well, where's the evidence for that?

Wow. An oil project in Alaska links into BP. Oh my God! Stop the presses!

Do you understand the concept of evidence? A connection to BP, most especially when the outcome did involve incurring the company's dissatisfaction, is not evidence of nepotism. You need to provide proof positive, or get off the pot with these fallacies about the criminality of association.

[Ender]

This is really funny. Yeah, we ae the ones who will do anything to win the argument because we don't accept a source known to be a piece of shit... but when the source is shown to be a piece of shit yet again you are still right.

In any argument, you go to the source. If somebody directs you to Wikipedia, it's intellectually puerile to treat that as a stopping point at which you can moan over technicalities. Which is what you have done.

I dismissed it because anyone can change it, which makes its credibility shit, and because it is well known how fiercely the GOP is watching that age in particular and editing in spin and talking points. And lo and behold, your claims were false talking points.

But hey, you are a pathetic little shit who can never admit he is wrong, even when your own sources show the opposite of what you claimed.

You are right, setting up a false competition so that you can then take a course of action that directly benefits your husbands corporation is totally not a sign of being corrupt as fuck.

Prove that there was false competition. Your apparent claim is that Palin had the bidding process rigged. Well, where's the evidence for that?

The article you linked to that explicitly stated that BP and ConocoPhillips (who had the competing "plan") never tried to fund it. That means it was 1 real plan, 2 paper proposals. That is a false competition.

Wow. An oil project in Alaska links into BP. Oh my God! Stop the presses!

Do you understand the concept of evidence? A connection to BP, most especially when the outcome did involve incurring the company's dissatisfaction, is not evidence of nepotism. You need to provide proof positive, or get off the pot with these fallacies about the criminality of association.

It didn't disappoint the company - they never even put out a bid to build it, just a report for it. And then the company started raking it in in production fees. When you set up a false competition and benefit either way in the end, yes that is illegal.

But you are going to keep repeating talking points despite your own source saying they are full of shit. So this will bounce right off your skull as well.

[Axis Kast]

I dismissed it because anyone can change it, which makes its credibility shit, and because it is well known how fiercely the GOP is watching that age in particular and editing in spin and talking points. And lo and behold, your claims were false talking points.

You dismissed it because it was a cheap means of scoring points. You could rail long and loud about inadmissible material and spin, while prolonging the debate, even though the article was right there, waiting for you.

But hey, you are a pathetic little shit who can never admit he is wrong, even when your own sources show the opposite of what you claimed.

Your argument doesn't satisfy the minimum requirements of plausibility. It's another conspiracy theory.

The article you linked to that explicitly stated that BP and ConocoPhillips (who had the competing "plan") never tried to fund it. That means it was 1 real plan, 2 paper proposals. That is a false competition.

So, anytime a bid is invited, and less than two proposals appear, the result is a sham?

The only conclusion this article allows is that TransCanada was the sole company with the resources to meet the requirements laid out. That isn't anybody's fault, or even evidence of wrongdoing.

It didn't disappoint the company - they never even put out a bid to build it, just a report for it. And then the company started raking it in in production fees. When you set up a false competition and benefit either way in the end, yes that is illegal.

It's almost impossible for the owner of major concessions in Alaskan oil country not to profit from any new pipeline. That's incidental, not necessarily intentional. Although the deal is designed to keep the line open to oil from sources other than BP.

If this is a plot designed to boost Palin's company, it's a shit poor one, and the evidence isn't there. But you'll ignore that, I'm already sure.

[General Zod]

Not at all.

What is it you're trying to convince people of here? That appointing the unqualified is bad? Fine. We can all agree.

But I take it that you, and most folks on this board, thought the Clinton years were pretty damn good. So did I. Ultimately, though, he committed the same mistake as Palin -- nepotism. And maybe it's even worse for Clinton; at least Todd Palin has experience dealing with an oil firm.

I don't see how dealing with an oil firm is a pro in his case.

Are you really such small men that you can't go to Wikipedia yourselves and click on the links? Guess so.

Anything to win an argument, right?

Are you such an idiot that you just can't directly quote something that's actually reliable? Or maybe you quoted wikipedia anyway just because you knew someone would jump your ass for it and wanted to flamebait people. I don't know. But since you're not arguing with my third point I can only assumes that means you agree that using Palin's husband in such a role was an excellent example of poor judgment on her part.

[Axis Kast]

I don't see how dealing with an oil firm is a pro in his case.

Palin was an oil production supervisor; what qualifications did Hillary hold to spearhead a review of the American healthcare system?

I think the appointment of both Todd Palin and Hillary Clinton (as First Lady) are disappointing, and bear criticism.

It's not something that will dramatically alter my electoral calculus, however. Much more important, in my opinion, is foreign policy.

Are you such an idiot that you just can't directly quote something that's actually reliable? Or maybe you quoted wikipedia anyway just because you knew someone would jump your ass for it and wanted to flamebait people. I don't know. But since you're not arguing with my third point I can only assumes that means you agree that using Palin's husband in such a role was an excellent example of poor judgment on her part.

Are you such a scumbag, you can't be bothered to go check things out for yourself? Or maybe you disputed it anyway, just because you know you could get away with stringing things out and scoring a few points? I don't know.

I agree that Sarah Palin's overt utilization of Todd Palin, and his appointments to various government posts, are inappropriate. I am not, however, inclined to take a harsh stance on the matter.