Republican Reactions to Stevens' Verdict

By TChris, Section Corruption Cases
Posted on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 10:29:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

In the wake of the Ted Stevens guilty (times seven) verdict, John McCain bravely called for Stevens to step down. With the election just a week away, Alaska voters may relieve Stevens of the burden of making that choice.

McCain, of course, wasn't really all that brave to speak out at long last against his corrupt Republican colleague. Now that McCain has decided to attack Obama as "soft on crime," he can't very well ignore the latest glaring example of criminality within the Republican Party.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, proclaimed yesterday "a sad day for Alaska and a sad day for Senator Stevens and his family" and promised to "carefully now monitor the situation and I’ll take any appropriate action as needed." She did not ask Stevens to resign. Instead, she complained about "the corrupting influence of the big oil service company up there in Alaska that was allowed to control too much of our state." What she did about that problem during her short service as governor went unmentioned.

[more ...]

Palin is walking a tightrope. She needs to project disapproval for corruption without undercutting the wishes of Alaska's Republican Party, which wants voters to vote for the incumbent felon even if only as a placeholder.

From a political strategy standpoint, a Stevens victory next week keeps the door open for the state GOP in the future
"If you don't vote for Ted Stevens now, you don't have an option in the future to have a conservative candidate," McHugh Pierre of the Alaska Republican Party said "You're stuck. You're stuck with a liberal who does not represent your views and beliefs."

If Stevens wins re-election, he can still start his new term in the senate. If he later decides to resign, then under state law, a special election would be called to replace him.

Republicans want to keep that option open, instead of just handing the Senate seat to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich for the next six years.

Stevens says:

"I remain a candidate for the United States Senate. I will come home on Wednesday and ask for your vote."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Dan Young still stand behind Stevens. Young even went so far as to say "He's the right thing for the state of Alaska." A corrupt politician who awaits sentencing on seven felony convictions is right for Alaska? How long will it be before we see the campaign slogan:

Corruption. It's right for Alaska.

If Murkowski and Young are tolerant of corrupt politicians, they should be the next to go.

< Poll Pron:* Obama By 16 | Political Demography: North Carolina >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Republican Reactions to Stevens' Verdict | 7 comments (7 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

i believe (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by cpinva on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 01:05:08 PM EST

What she did about that problem during her short service as governor went unmentioned.

she raised taxes on them, so the wealth could be shared by all alaskans, in the form of a direct payment. would this make gov. palin a socialist?

just askin'...................

: I was thinking exactly this point... (none / 0) (#7)
by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 03:55:45 PM EST

all this talk about taxes and socialism and yet the main reason Palin is so popular in Alaska is due to these exact reasons...
if she hadn't given every Alaskan free money by taxing those big bad oil men would she be so popular?
and why hasn't anyone brought this up on the news or in the campaigns?

Condemning Stevens (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Ellis on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 02:33:52 PM EST

First, let me be absolutely clear -- I despise John McCain and Sarah Palin. I think they represent a real danger to this country and the world -- in terms of both prosperity and peace.

But I'm a little mystified when I read on lefty blogs that McCain should have condemned Stevens long ago and called for his resignation.

Since when is it appropriate to find people guilty and begin punishing them before the trial verdict is in?

Stevens is a disgrace, and while I'm certainly willing to believe that he is guilty, there also seems to have been some serious prosecutorial misconduct during the trial.

It's true, there's nothing courageous about calling for someone's resignation after the verdict is in, but that doesn't make it courageous to do so before the verdict. Doing that is simply irresponsible. People are routinely tried and convicted in the media, but just because it is common, doesn't make it right.

Other than to have noticed reports of prosecutorial misconduct, I didn't really pay much attention to the trial. I have no idea whether or not Stevens has a real shot at reversal on appeal, but he needs to make his decisions based on what he thinks will happen.

From my point of view, the best case scenario would be for him to remain in the race, carrying the banner of a convicted felon for the GOP, and then to lose next Tuesday. That gets him out and doesn't allow the Governor to appoint a substitute. It will be interesting to see what the post-conviction polls show. Right now the race looks frighteningly close. Alaskans wouldn't be the first electorate to elect a candidate in serious legal jeopardy, and I doubt they'll be the last should they opt for Stevens next week.

I think Sarah Palin's response (none / 0) (#1)
by hairspray on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 11:12:44 AM EST

was the right one. The outcome of the election will create problems in the US senate for Stevens, should he win. I read today, that he can then be expelled by the US senate if they choose to do so. The ball is in someone else's court for the time being. It will be easier if the Alaskan's vote for the Democrat and end the bloodletting. It will save the US Senate a lot of grief as well as the Governor of Alaska. Let us hope for the Democrat to win for a lot of reasons.

Let's be clear, too (none / 0) (#2)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 12:34:47 PM EST

that the man was not on trial for corruption and was not convicted of corruption, and the prosecution made enough of a pig mess that he's certainly got a fair chance on appeal.

I've heard a fair number of GOP congresscritters speaking out against what he's been convicted of doing, which is failing to file complete and accurate financial disclosure forms, but I don't think there's a rat's chance even the Dem-dominated Senate is going to vote two thirds to toss a long-time colleague out if he's reelected, not on conviction for such relatively minor paperwork transgressions, even if they are felonies.

Let's hope they manage to catch him on actual corruption, whether he's reelected or not.


I'd love to talk to (none / 0) (#4)
by Fabian on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 01:56:09 PM EST

Stevens' CPA or bookkeeper. I bet they had some choice words.

Stevens really had no excuse at all. Anyone who had been a Senator for that long and has been filling out the loads and loads of financial paperwork for that long should know the drills.

Either that or he's been getting away with similar shenanigans for quite some time now.


: Senator Stevens Reputation in One Word: (none / 0) (#6)
by KeysDan on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 02:52:15 PM EST

"Sterling", in the testimony of one Colin Powell, in trial testimony. Moreover, Stevens, he said, was a "master appropriator". Indeed. Have not heard from General Powell on this matter, but looking forward to his comments.