Okay...we progressives are reticent to call others' patriotism into question. As long as I've been following presidential campaigns, it has been the weapon of choice of Republicans against Democrats, and we hesitate to stoop to their level.
With that out of the way, we are all aware of Sarah Palin's involvement with the AIP. While that might seem like an obvious problem to most of us, remember who we're dealing with. Those who proclaim that the government worsens all problems, deify "state's rights", and so on. So, what could be more mavericky than past involvement in an independent party that holds those ideals?
Yep -- believe it or not, there are those
who would spin this in a positive light. See -- she's no thecon, just a strong independent, from the libertarian wing of the Republican party. Others would right it off as no big deal.
However as the first commenter at the last link points out (and she deserves full credit for prompting this diary):
She is running for VP of the United States of America, not Alaska. This group's motto is 'Alaska first, Alaska always' and they don't want to be part of the U.S. ... If Obama's patriotism can be called in to question because he has funny name, and doesn't wear a flag pin, I don't see how we can overlook questioning her patriotism. How can she be VP (or potential president)of a country that she doesn't want to be a part of?
Indeed. The argument is rendered quite a bit stronger when we recall this video: where she wants to ensure that the VP slot would be "a fruitful type of position....especially for Alaska...".
Alaska first? That seems to be her motivation for accepting the nomination.
So...I realize the AIP connection has been thoroughly covered here...but the connection to her statement in the CNBC interview was just too strong to let slide...[And yes, text about her AIP membership, overlaid with that video would make an excellent viral, if not an official campaign ad].