Posted on 02/15/2011 6:28:34 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Dear Sarah,
You and I first crossed paths on a fairly pleasant day in Ketchikan, Alaska, during the lonely part of your effort to unseat the deplorable Governor Frank Murkowski in 2006. Like you, I had a booth at the Ketchikan Blueberry Festival - and neither of us were very busy. You were the “outsider” tracking down the hometown boy, Murkowski, and I was the “radical” environmentalist undermining his work. The conservative town on Revillagigedo Island didn’t care much for either you or me at the time.
I approached you on your stroll of solitude around the festival, and you saw my approach out of the corner of your eye. If the signs and the t-shirts and the postcards at my booth didn’t label me a “greenie” right away, I know my introduction did: Gregory Vickrey of the Tongass Conservation Society and Alaska Conservation Voters, how do you do?
I knew why you were there, but you told me anyway. You knew I hated the Bridge to Nowhere scheduled for my town, but I told you anyway. And because you noticed I was wearing an Illinois Fighting Illini shirt both of us were more than capable of changing to a lighter topic of discussion. This would not be the last time we’d talk college hoops.
The world now knows you steamrolled through a primary with the aforementioned Murkowski and John Binkley, and overwhelmed the obsolete former governor Tony Knowles (Eric Croft would have been a better challenger, and we both know it) as well as independent nemesis Andrew Halcro in the general election. You had a campaign for change, and our beautiful state was prime for implementing it after the failures of King Frank. You had the wherewithal of keen foresight, and left the established network of good-ol’-boy politics behind. You had the will to challenge, and harnessed the brand of independence to achieve.
What happened?
Looking back, I see the Sarah Palin I knew in Juneau - the Sarah with a presence of mind to recall our debates about basketball; the Sarah who worked with the aforementioned Croft to remove corrupt individuals from the intertwined network between state government and the oil and coal industries; the Sarah who challenged the federal government and its continued effort to pillage Alaska’s natural resources.
The Sarah Palin who was approachable.
The Sarah Palin who helped our small environmental group kill the Bridge to Nowhere.
The Sarah Palin who couldn’t say for certain that humankind was the culprit behind climate change, but knew we had to mitigate and adapt to reality anyway.
We didn’t agree on a lot of things, Sarah. But when we did, you or your staff knew, and the “outsider” Republican and “radical” environmentalist made a go of it, sometimes quietly and other times not so. Bridge to Nowhere. Village erosion mitigation. Fire Island Wind Project. A calculated refusal to bow down to establishment Republicans over that oh-so-sensitive provision in the state constitution (you remember: they didn’t like you and wanted to expose a hypocrisy in you that didn’t exist at the time). Alaska Marine Highway System. University Lands. Oil tax reform.
What happened?
In 2008, I supported the ticket of Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez. I would do so again, because I know and admire both men and believe the views they hold and the work they do are desperately needed on this planet, and in this country. And I know what I am about to share with you in public will likely cause recoil amongst some of my colleagues and allies (no doubt this entire letter does!). But it should be clear in my writing: I have an agenda. And the following email snippet I sent to a rather conservative friend in 2008, after your nomination to Vice Presidential candidacy, serves that agenda.
“She is (was?) a really solid governor for Alaska, and a good person. I was quite lucky to get to know her, and had a good working relationship with her and her administration (as her cancellation of the Bridge to Nowhere in Ketchikan attests). She is extremely popular among the people of the state, and not so much amongst the legislature, which - to me - is great.
“I did not vote for her in 2006. I did not vote for the Democrat Tony Knowles either (and preferred her over him). I actually voted for Andrew Halcro, the Republican turned independent that is leading the charge of the Troopergate scandal. (I respect Andy deeply, and am glad he brought up the question of abuse of power, but I believe he has gone too far, and has done so for the sake of political ambition - it is obvious to me that he has a personal problem with Sarah.)
“My biggest fear of her prior to her victory was that she would be far too evangelical once in power. That concern was overblown, frankly. She is smart and savvy, and during her first two years she did a wonderful job of picking her political battles (the Bridge, budget vetoes, gasline, oil taxes, transportation), allowed state agencies to actually do their work, and enforced a sound fiscal policy while challenging corruption at every level of state government. She stayed away from social issues even though she had opportunities to push her evangelical side, and that was brilliant of her (Republican Lyda Green, our Senate President, can't stand Sarah and tried to force an abortion debate - for the purposes of creating derision in the state and to loosen the support of Dems and independents for Sarah on non-social issues - over 6 different potential law changes - Sarah wouldn't bite).
“It goes without saying that I did not agree with her on all things (like aerial shooting of wolves and ANWR), but I wouldn't agree on all things with anyone, and she proved herself to be prudent once elected to the point where I am actually happy with her work, overall.
“I thoroughly enjoyed talking with her on the occasions we got together. We'd always talk basketball (she is a big fan) before getting down to business, and she was always kind, funny, and as open as she could be under the circumstances (radical vs. governor haha).
“I am surprised she accepted the role of VP, given the circumstances with her newest child, but I think the pick was brilliant. My immediate reaction was as follows:
“1. As long as she doesn't totally bomb and embarrass herself, I think McCain improved his election chances with the pick of Sarah (barring any extenuating circumstances, inclusive of not letting her be herself). I knew social conservatives and the Christian right would love her (even though she never pushed that agenda in Alaska) and she could certainly garner more than a few Hillary voters.
“2. I fear for Alaska. Should they win, there will be a vacuum in the state, and that vacuum is most likely to be filled by the good ole boys she cleaned out and the oil companies she reigned in. The old guard Republicans - the corrupt ones - are quite pleased with the thought of her being gone, as are the oil companies she whipped into shape. If you want, I can detail more on the whys of this. They are specific.
“To conclude, the Sarah Palin I know I support. I like her, and I would even work for her on some issues. I hope the national stage and DC cronyism don't change her too much. If they do, I will revisit this statement.”
(Gasp! The horror of it all! How could a “radical” leftie actually support anything Sarah Palin has ever done, uttered, or represented?!?)
It should be obvious to anyone: I have revisited this statement many times. I’m haunted by it, in innumerable ways. And not because I was wrong about you, then, Sarah. I wasn’t. Rather, I am haunted because I am right about you, today.
Some combination of fortune, fame, limelight, soundbite, ego, and inner circle of advisers has corrupted you and your approach to the point where your effective reality is no better - and in some cases, worse - than the shanty Republican you replaced (Murkowski) and the inept Democrat (Knowles) you demolished back home in Alaska more than four years ago. Misguided counsel, the parade of Johnny’s-come-lately, and cronyism have reduced you to a caricature of your character, and undermined your abilities (yes, I said abilities) to change the world for the better, and I’d like to understand why, and what you are going to do about it.
I don’t need you to see everything the way I see it, Sarah. I don’t expect you to publicly echo my alarm over methane feedback loops from melting permafrost in Alaska. I won’t beg you to forcefully acknowledge the climate catastrophe we have on our hands today as the world rapidly approaches states of peril in food security, clean water sourcing, and economic collapse. I can’t fathom a day when you will recognize the imperative of a zero carbon world.
But I know your real character - the one that still exists behind the cartoons and the cut-outs. I have seen your recognition of the state of the world and your ambition to affect it positively for the sake of the next seven generations instead of the next seven figures. I have witnessed your hands dirty with the earth of a dying community in Southeast Alaska. I have watched you manipulate with knowledge a massive budget so the imperative mitigation and adaptation could begin.
Don’t you think it is time the world sees?
Let me know.
Gregory Vickrey is a consultant in the nonprofit and political arenas and may be reached at: gregory@gregoryvickrey.com
>>In 2008, I supported the ticket of Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez.<<
I stopped reading at that point.
Whoever this wienie is, he/she had only 1 or 2 brain cells and isn’t worth tracking.
He says he’s from Alaska, but writes like he lives in the state of confusion.
What would be the motivation of a very leftie enviro to ‘reason’ with Sarah?
It certainly is not to get the world to see the real Sarah.
I think he concocted most of his prescient comments to add credibility to his appeal.
What part of this open letter is open because Vickery wants to associate his name with hers? Seems to me his stated interests would have been better served with a phone call or actual letter, if not a face to face meeting to talk to her about what he writes here.
Well I read the whole thing. He supported her but not enough to vote for her and whatshisname and he’s wanting the same ole Sarah back because from his point of view she’s changed for the worse.
My thought is how could she not change after all that has happened?
I thought that was a very nice very fair and good article.
What’s the date for that?
>>Well I read the whole thing. He supported her but not enough to vote for her and whatshisname and he’s wanting the same ole Sarah back because from his point of view she’s changed for the worse.<<
Well, thanks for doing the digging — and thanks for the summary.
http://www.countercurrents.org/vickrey150211.htm
The article was dated today feb 15.
There was only one paragraph that was at all bad, and it blames someone else, an easily fixed problem.
More attacks like that.
“I’m a crazy leftist, and even I love you. We don’t agree, because I’m a crazy leftist, but you’ll be a great president. Fire Bill Kristol and the neocons that you’ve surrounded yourself with, and you’ll be right back to conservative perfect again.”
Yes, I agree its fixable.
In Gregory’s mind, he is a very important person and his opinion matters a lot.
This is a positive letter for Sarah. This fellow is an obvious leftie and greenie. He had no common positions with Gov. Palin, yet was allowed to interact and he developed an admiration for her. It wasn’t strong enough that he would vote for her, too far to the left for that, but he had confidence in who she was and knew that she would be herself. She has the ability, as Reagan did, to make her opponents like her and admire her, and work with her in places where they can.
He seems to be pleading for her to dispel the myths and falsehoods and be herself again. This tells us that there is a switch about to be turned on when Sarah hits the campaign trail and starts taking her message directly to voters. Maybe something we haven’t seen during the tightly scripted McCain campaign, or in stump speeches.
Vickery has done what many other Alaskans haven’t...offer a true picture of how Gov. Palin governed. Democrat office holders have probably been sworn to silence.
Sure, the condition is caused by external factors, remove the external factors, and the condition goes away.
That’s not even an attack.
“inner circle of advisors”
“Misguided counsel, the parade of Johnny’s-come-lately, and cronyism” or, “other people not you sarah, other people not you sarah, and other people not you sarah”
The only intrinsic factor could be ego.
Fortune (not her doing), fame (not her doing), limelight (not her doing), soundbite (not sure what this means, but it could mean the tendency of the media - not her doing - to rely on soundbite), ego (that’s it, that the only personal criticism) and inner circle of advisors. The only things that are really fixable are “ego” and “inner circle of advisors”. And note that they aren’t weighted. “inner circle of advisors” could be 99% of the problem.
Watch the ego, fire your inner circle of advisors. And get well soon. Because I think you’re great even though I’m a crazy leftist. That’s the message of the article. Very positive article.
Fortune, fame and limelight not her doing? Who are you trying to kid? Every bit of it is her choice.
“Some combination of fortune, fame, limelight, soundbite, ego, and inner circle of advisers has corrupted you and your approach to the point where your effective reality is no better - and in some cases, worse - than the shanty Republican you replaced (Murkowski) and the inept Democrat (Knowles) you demolished back home in Alaska more than four years ago. Misguided counsel, the parade of Johnny’s-come-lately, and cronyism have reduced you to a caricature of your character, and undermined your abilities (yes, I said abilities) to change the world for the better, and I’d like to understand why, and what you are going to do about it.”
Yes, all fixable but I have to wonder if he hasn’t bought into some of the media lies and therefore thinks she has changed when she really hasn’t.
Fortune is chance, not wealth in this case.
She didn’t run for the VP nomination. It was just there, out of the blue.
Fame, same thing, without the VP nomination, no fame,
Limelight, same thing.
Taking the VP nomination is not seeking good fortune, fame and the limelight. It’s doing what’s best for your country, for your party, however you want to say it.
And fortune fame and the limelight were put there by John McCain in the summer of 2008 and they’ve never gone away. And there was nothing that Palin could do to make the fame and the limelight just go away entirely. She would always have healthy amounts of both, no matter what she did.
She could minimize them, but they’re going to be there no matter what. So, if you have to have them, more would be better, perhaps?
To be fair, I think the book and tv show were her doing. I still like her, I just wish she wouldn't be evasive on some of the questions. If you support scamnesty, say it. I'm not convinced that she will run, so it really won't matter. jmo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.