By Dylan Matthews
Following all the Sarah Palin scandals is roughly as taxing as following all the plot twists in Neighbours. The latest, though, isn't getting a whole lot of play, but seems pretty damning to me. Matt Corley of Think Progress lays it out:
In an effort to claim that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has adequate foreign policy experience, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign has repeatedly referred to her as "the commander of the National Guard, of Alaska’s National Guard." On Fox News Sunday last week, McCain himself invoked that experience, saying, "She has been with her troops, the National Guard that she commands."
But in several interviews last week, the relevance of Palin's role with the National Guard was severely undercut by the actual commander of the Alaska National Guard – its Adjutant General, Major General Craig Campbell.
[…]
Brandon Friedman at VetVoice points out that Campbell struck a different tone days later when he spoke to Fox News, saying, “National Guards are state military forces run by governors, and Sarah Palin does it great.”
As Friedman notes, Palin promoted Campbell two days later, making him a Lieutenant General in the Alaska National Guard. There is no direct evidence of a causal link between Campbell’s praise for Palin and his promotion, but Friedman writes that “this series of events raises serious questions about what’s going on” and “the media would be wise to probe this further.”
As Matt stresses, the evidence is circumstantial at this point, and for all we know Campbell's promotion to lieutenant general was regular, scheduled, and generally on the up and up. There's no announcement of such a promotion previous to Monday on Palin's website, but some more reporting is needed before declaring this quid pro quo.
That said, if true, this strikes me as much, much more damaging than Troopergate or Palin's Bridge to Nowhere lie. The former can be dismissed as family drama, and getting the news media to persist in pointing out Palin's lies about the bridge seems like a noble but futile endeavor. This, by contrast:
1) Is straight corruption. No family ties, no extenuating circumstances to make it appear more complicated. Just a clear, cut and dry, easy to follow narrative: a general was critical of Palin, and as soon as he said something positive he was promoted. A five-year-old could see that's political patronage.
2) Happened a couple of days ago. The Bridge to Nowhere story is spread out over a few years. The critiques about Palin's mayoral administration in Wasilla rely on decades-old facts. This, on the other hand, is fresh, and happened when Palin knew she was on a national ticket and hence ought to be more careful. If she's willing to so nakedly politicize Alaska's armed forces when she's under the national spotlight, what institutions will she be willing to corrupt when she's working in the Naval Observatory?
3) Goes directly to her fitness to be commander-in-chief. One of the most despicable aspects of the Bush presidency has been his total willingness to throw military advice and counsel - starting with that of General Shinseki - to the wind. This critique has been buttressed just this week by Bob Woodward's revelation that Bush pushed for the surge against the advice of Generals Casey and Abizaid. If Palin's played politics with the Alaska National Guard, who's to say she won't play politics with the Joint Chiefs, just like Bush did?
