Palins took on disgraced, corrupt Stevens? HA...This isn't waffling we can believe in.

One of the more foolish talking points the McCain campaign has come up with in defense of Sarah Palin is the notion that she's clashed with Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens (R). As the story goes, Stevens is corrupt (he's currently under indictment), and Palin's willingness to stand up to him, despite his power in Alaska, is proof of her strong willed independence.

A week ago, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told CNN, "Gov. Palin took on Ted Stevens. If she can take him on, she can take on the Russians. Heh." McCain made similar comments on Sunday.

It's all very strange. For one thing, Palin hasn't "taken on" Stevens; she actually helped run Stevens' 527 group. For another, far from rebuking Stevens, Palin hasn't ruled out voting for him, despite the felony charges he's facing.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not saying whether she will vote in November to send the indicted Ted Stevens back to the Senate for a seventh term.

The indictment has put Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) running mate in a tricky position. If Palin endorses Stevens, it will appear that she is undermining her message of taking on the GOP establishment and cleaning up corruption in her state. But should the popular governor oppose his reelection, it could deliver a blow to Stevens's campaign and give Democrats ammunition as they try to pick up one more Senate seat.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014581.php

Palin's spokesmen in the McCain campaign have not responded to several inquiries seeking comment on the governor's position on Stevens. A spokesman for the McCain campaign told the Alaska-based Peninsula Clarion that Palin has yet to endorse Stevens, the paper reported on its website Friday.

It's not a trick question. Does Palin support the allegedly corrupt Stevens, or doesn't she?

Bethany Lesser, a spokeswoman for the Alaska Democratic Party, presented a reasonable case: "Palin claims to spearhead reform in Alaska, rooting out corruption. But so far she has stood steadfast by indicted Sen. Stevens's side. Alaskans and the nation deserve to know once and for all -- where does Palin stand on Stevens for Senate?"

This isn't waffling we can believe in.

That pretty much says all I need to know.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html

================
Palin's name is listed on 2003 incorporation papers of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group that could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. The group was designed to serve as a political boot camp for Republican women in the state. She served as one of three directors until June 2005, when her name was replaced on state filings....
Board members of Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service were legally allowed to raise as much money as they wanted from corporations or unions or unlimited donations from individuals -- all of which would have been illegal for Stevens to do himself.

At the time of the 2004 Roll Call report, Stevens's involvement was limited to some conversations with the group's board.

"He has just agreed that we can use his name," Gloria Shriver, the founder of the group and wife of Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich, told the newspaper. "He did say that we could use and wished us the very best."

During her interview, Shriver left open the option that Stevens might help with some fundraising, the newspaper reported.

There is no record in IRS filings as to how much the group eventually raised.
=======================

I assume that the last sentence reflects this website, or one like it:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp

I'm unsure how to resolve the "established date" from the second webpage with the reported 2003 date in the first link. That might be interesting. Or it might not be.

I think that's all they've dug up. Even the "was designed" statement is understated: You'd expect a report on what it did; by leaving that out, the implicature (a discourse-pragmatic term, not the logical "implication") is that the reporter didn't turn up any evidence of activity.

Anybody know where to search incorporation papers or IRS 527 filings on-line?