My original response was intended to discuss the impact that this issue will have on the general electorate. As we've found via other politician's “possible links” to controversial issues, the link itself can sometimes itself be immaterial as long as it exists. Often, it doesn't even have to reach that threshold. That Sarah Palin has a link (and, if it is her husband, it is a close one in the eye of the general public) to a secessionist party in Alaska is one of those controversial issues.

As you've said, there are often very different ways to look at secession. Other places are the same, like in Taiwan (where my brother lives). How the methods vary only changes the severity that any possible impact might have on a politician.

I also said I wasn't in the mood to check, and wondered if anyone knew, so calling em lazy doesn't hurt my feelings on this; I already announced I was being lazy.

As for the Hawaii secessionists, there are two groups, one that recently took over Iolani Palace by force (again), and one that has tries to use the courts. Their is a difference in the Hawaii movement, I believe, as even the legal-strategy has, at its core, the desire to sever all ties to the US, and deny citizenship to all people of non-Hawaiian ancestry, and restore a Monarchy where the Ali'i (ruling class) own all the land, and the Maka'ainana (commoners) are barely more than surfs.

Now, you state 'any possible link'. Well, if her husband, or other relatives, were active members, that is still immaterial. If she herself was an active member and has not since denounced that position, or maybe was in a position of authority, that would be a different matter.

And please do not think of me as a Palin supporter. I have been clear from the beginning that IMO this choice was a huge mistake.

Um, anyone actually have an answer to my question, rather than irrelevant ramblings?

It was stated in the original post that the group promoted secessionist ideas. A google search of “alaska secession” or “alaska independence” offers their platform as the first hit each time. It took, perhaps, one minute to accomplish.

Now, given the information, could you offer your thoughts on how any possible link between Sarah Palin and this group might affect the national election? I'm curious as to your opinions in that regard, especially having lived in Hawaii as you note.

“Damn Republicans and their marriage to the blame America first crowd” was a well-crafted analysis.

I should have made clear I was not making a reference to your reply at all, but it is so hard to remember how thin-skinned the left is.

I tried looking it up on TPM's website, but couldn't get on.

It seems like Mr. Palen will be vastly outdistanced in class, common sense and patriotism by Jill Biden, who no one would ever be able to call an extremist.

So, not violent. But plenty extreme.

irrelevant ramblings? Not everything, or even much of anything was in response to your question. Here's an idea spend 30 seconds looking it up rather than being a wise ass.

I didn't advocate anything; I was just curious what this group was. In truth, there is a difference between someone advocating violent overthrow vs., in the case of Hawaii (where I lived for 20 years, and got married and had my children), feeling that the overthrow of the Monarchy was an illegal act, and pursuing tort claims to get it overthrown (however unlikely that is to ever come to pass).

My point being that nothing that has been revealed about Palin has been any reason to disqualify her or even make any real issue out of.

Except evidence that directly contradicts her credibility as a reformer and fiscal conservative, which is the McCain camp's only substantive narrative about experience.

At this point in our history as a nation of nations, it's the federal system that the majority of the populace prefers to see strengthened. The states, while still powerful, continually find their powers limited by the federal government. Until that trend begins to reverse itself, those politicians that are affiliated with talk or efforts of breaking up that nation aren't going to be looked on as favorably as those who want that federal system strengthened.

So, to conclude, I don't find “the idea that Palin wasn't well vetted a bit reaching.” I find that the accusation is probably correct, unless McCain & Co. actually wanted all of these various tidbits to spring to light during the RNC. In that case, they are irretrievably stoopid, and are committing political suicide.

Palin's husband's membership in a radical political secessionist group, otoh, seems like political dynamite. If McCain vetted her thorougly, this doesn't say much for his judgment.

As far as the experience……… that an Obama supporter can make that argument with a straight face is amazing.

You don't need Obama supporters making that argument. Just press play on all the clips of Republicans and McCain himself questioning Obama's experience.

McCain was the one running as the only person we could safely trust in a time of war, now his previous arguments come across as completely dishonest. Too bad those arguments were the backbone of his campaign.