In Sarah Palin's introductory speech, she made a passing reference to her husband's background:

And then we have as -- after my husband, who is a lifelong commercial fisherman, lifetime Alaskan -- he's a production operator. Todd is a production operator in the oil fields up on Alaska's North Slope, and he's a proud member of the United Steelworkers Union, and he's a world champion snow machine racer.

While it's interesting that Mr. Palin, often referred to by Sarah Palin as the "First Dude," races snow machines, it's that production operator gig that I'm most interested in.

Mr. Palin spent the better part of the last two decades working for British Petroleum, an entity that is significantly impacted by the work of Mr. Palin's wife, the nearly 21-month Governor of Alaska.  Mr. Palin was a production supervisor with BP, which became involved with negotiations over the natural gas pipeline with Governor Palin.

Shortly after Mrs. Palin's election, Mr. Palin took a leave of absence from BP specifically to avoid a conflict of interest between his job at BP and his personal life as the Governor's husband.  But that desire to avoid a conflict of interest didn't last long:

A decision by Alaska's first family is raising concerns about a possible conflict of interest involving Gov. Sarah Palin and the oil industry.

The governor's husband, Todd Palin, is back on BP's payroll. Gov. Palin says his return will not influence her decisions involving the oil industry, but one former lawmaker who wrote an ethics guideline for the administration believes it's a bad move at the wrong time. ...

The governor has called a special session of the Legislature to possibly rewrite the Petroleum Profits Tax. Her proposals could have a multi-million dollar impact on her husband's employer. BP could also become a major player in the natural gas line project.

But the Palins argued that, because the role Mr. Palin returned to wasn't directly in management, there wasn't a conflict of interest, despite the major financial decisions being negotiated between Mr. Palin's company and Mrs. Palin's administration:

"A conflict could be perceived if my spouse's position was in a management position with an oil company. But, because it's a blue-collar, in-the-field type job, working in a facility as a production operator, separating the oil, the gas and water; it's not a management position where decision are being made for the future of investment with this oil company in Alaska. So, it hasn't been perceived, on our part anyway, as a conflict of interest," Gov. Palin said.

Still, the very existence of the perception of impropriety and a conflict of interest is what unsettles those seeking to hold a self-described reformer like Mrs. Palin to a higher standard:

[Democratic] Former state Rep. Ethan Berkowitz co-authored the "Ethics White Paper" with [Republican] former U.S. Attorney Wev Shea at the request of the governor shortly after she took office. He doesn't agree with Mr. Palin's decision to go back to work.

"It's bad timing. It's a tough situation for the family, but I think the interests of the state have to come first," Berkowitz said. "In the interest of the state, you need to make sure you're above the appearance of impropriety."

He said Todd Palin's employment with a major North Slope producer could raise questions and problems.

"The short version is, I think this adds an unnecessary, complicating variable to a very complex situation. Going through a revision of the oil and gas tax is going to be difficult enough as it is and you want as few distractions as possible. This will amount to a distraction," Berkowitz said.

Further, there is a very big question mark as to what role Mr. Palin has really played with BP since returning to work, as KTUU's Capitol bureau chief Bill McAllister reports:

There's an interesting mix of comments from Republicans on this. One legislator called me today to say that Todd actually was involved in the legislative process last year, and referred me to two colleagues. But in talking with those two legislators, there was no indication of the sort. Each reported one instance in which the First Dude was present at a meeting, but in one case so were the couple's children, and in the other, he reportedly didn't say anything. Sharon Leighow, the governor's deputy press secretary, says Todd played absolutely no role in any legislative business last session.

So we already have a conflict.  Mrs. Palin argued that Mr. Palin's job did not represent a conflict of interest because the job Mr. Palin returned to was an "in-the-field type job."  Yet Republican state legislators confirm that Mr. Palin attended legislative meetings (ostensibly held in an office and not "in the field"), though Mr. Palin reportedly "didn't say anything."  I'm sure that the Governor's spouse, also a two-decade BP employee, sitting quietly in the corner didn't draw any attention.

Now, was there a conflict of interest?  I hope not.  And I don't immediately think so.  But was there the perception of a conflict of interest - the perception of impropriety?  Absolutely.  Mr. Palin left his employ at BP to avoid a conflict, and then returned, and reportedly sat in on legislative meetings between BP and state legislators.

Given that McCain-Palin's slogan is "Country First: Reform-Prosperity-Peace," I think that Mrs. Palin needs to hold her family's professional transparency to a higher standard.

The Palins should immediately release a list of every meeting that Mr. Palin attended after returning to work that was also attended by officials in the Alaskan Government, as well as the agendas of those meetings.  Confirm for the voters that Mr. Palin's role with BP while BP conducted negotiations with Mrs. Palin's administration really did not represent a conflict of interest.  Further, Mr. Palin ought to release a job description of his role when he took the leave of absence specifically to avoid a conflict of interest, as well as a job description of the role he returned to, so we could better understand how they differed and why it all of a sudden did not represent a conflict of interest.

Even Mr. Palin's rationale for returning to work doesn't immediately pass the smell test:

Todd Palin said the family needs the extra income.

"I mean, we're still fairly young and we've got kids going into college. Some governors and their spouses, I'm sure, are independently wealthy, but we're not one of those couples. So we have to watch out for our kids' future," Mr. Palin said.

Why does that not immediately pass the smell test?

In case you were wondering, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin owns three homes -- one is her family's main residence and the other two are for recreation, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Further, the Governor of Alaska pulls down a six-figure salary.  Now, I admit that I don't know the average Alaskan family's cost of living.  And, while a family with a six-figure salary, one main residence, and two "recreational" residences might just be considered poor by John McCain's count, I don't imagine that the Palins were too terribly hard up for cash.  At the very least, selling one of their two purely "recreational" residences would have been a more appropriate option to Mr. Palin taking a job with the potential for such a conflict of interest.  Perhaps Mr. Palin could have sought employ with a company that didn't do such high profile business with the state of Alaska and the Palin Administration.  Or Mr. Palin could have tried to expand that "commercial fisherman" business that Mrs. Palin repeatedly references.  That is, of course, as long as the Palins put Alaska first the same way that McCain-Palin claims to want to put "Country First."

I look forward to the Palins disclosing the information about Mr. Palin's quiet sit-ins on legislative business between BP and the Alaskan state government, that is, if the Palins care to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard.

Most people hold positions on specific issues that stay true to their core, certain bedrock, unflinching principles.  

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin demonstrated one of her allegedly bedrock, unflinching principles a long, long time ago - well, um, almost seven months ago - when she refused to endorse Arizona's senior Senator for President:

Some Alaska Republicans are conflicted over McCain, including Gov. Sarah Palin. They like his maverick reputation and military background but not his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"She said she'd like to support McCain but felt she couldn't at this particular time because of his stand on ANWR," said the governor's spokeswoman, Sharon Leighow.

And what is McCain's stand on ANWR?

First: the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. McCain has always been against oil drilling and exploration in ANWR.

So, as recently as less than seven months ago, Sarah Palin refused to even endorse McCain because of a position of McCain's that, in a relatively rare occurrence, has not changed.  That's how strongly principled she was (note the past tense) in support of drilling in ANWR.

But now she's willing to sell out her principle in the name of political opportunism, certainly going well beyond just endorsing McCain.

Maybe McCain is planning to trade in his old position for a newer model, which would also appease the "Drill Here, Drill Now!" crowd.  Of course, that would be yet another major league flip-flop on John McCain's end.

In short, until McCain is willing to flip-flop on ANWR, Palin will have to backpedal on her earlier refusal to support McCain over ANWR, lest she face accusations of political spinelessness, to go along with the thin resume, far-right-wing extremism, abuse of power scandal, and financial mismanagement.

Jonathan was kind enough to invite me to give y'all a heads up about my new URL.  Senate 2008 Guru has moved.  The new site is:

Senate Guru
http://www.senateguru.com/

C'mon by and share your thoughts on the Senate races! (bumped -- jonathan)

I know this is off the topic of the 2008 Senate races, but this has been sticking in my craw all week.  By now, you're probably aware of the fairly twisted jokes Faux News personality John Gibson made out of the death of Heath Ledger, as well as Gibson's piling on, and subsequent half-assed pseudo-apology (probably at the prodding of corporate sponsors).  And you're probably aware of the wingnut hate group who shall remain nameless here planning to protest Ledger's funeral ceremony because, as it clearly says in the Bible, it is an abomination not only to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered, but it's also an abomination to play a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered character in a movie.

Why is it that more people (members of the media, bloggers, talk show hosts, people I overhear chatting on the subway) aren't talking about the plain fact that, in a conservative movement and a Republican Party in which anything other than Leave It to Beaver-style heterosexuality and family structures are frowned upon, to say the least, there is a very significant chunk of members who are gay?  Really gay.  Totally gay.  And doing everything they can to hide it.  And that the more vocally anti-gay one is, the more likely, it appears, that person is conflicted about their own sexual orientation?

Wikipedia's entry on "latent homosexuality" notes that:

A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that a number of "homophobic" males exhibit latent homosexuality.

This brings us to the ironic tale of former Congressman Ed Schrock.  Schrock was a conservative legislator for Virginia, and was especially conservative on the gays.  He co-sponsored an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage; and, this Navy veteran firmly, oh so firmly, believed that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy regarding "homosexual conduct" in the military should have been replaced by an outright ban on gay people from serving in the military.  This guy was very anti-gay.  Ipso facto, he must have been very heterosexual.  Heck, he must have been the heterosexualest!  Then why was it that Schrock, amid his second term in Congress in 2004, all of a sudden announced that he was dropping his effort to seek re-election to a third term?  It probably had a lot to do with Schrock's very explicit audio-profile on a gay sex personals website.  Schrock's veneer of, what George Costanza would call, an umblemished record of staunch heterosexuality was mortally compromised; so, after being yanked out of the conservative closet, he had to leave the conservative club.

(Much more after the flip.)

So the polls had Obama taking a significant bump from Iowa to a large New Hampshire victory over Clinton, and there was only supposed to be a hair of difference between McCain and Romney.

Were the polls crazy?

No.  I don't think so.  How?  Here's a pretty simple theory.

New Hampshire's independent voters ostensibly preferred Obama among the Democrats and McCain among the Republicans.  These independents were waiting until the day of the primary election to decide which candidate to turn out for.

Given that the polls looked so much stronger for Obama's victory, many of these independents (who were polling in support of Obama) decided that, with Obama's New Hampshire victory looking so secure, they might as well use their vote to make sure McCain bested Romney.  Only, so many of these independent voters thought the same thing that it shifted Obama's comfortable margin of victory to McCain.

So what should the pollsters and the media do?  Instead of analyzing how Clinton beat Obama, they should check in with McCain-voting independents who decided in the last couple days to vote in the Republican primary for McCain, and I'll bet you that a good chunk of them saw Obama comfortably winning so they gave their vote to McCain - and that the polls were accurate in terms of gauging their support - they just weren't accurate in gauging whether they'd vote in the Democratic or Republican primaries.

That's my theory anyway.

Both the Washington Post and the Clarion-Ledger are saying that Republican Governor Haley Barbour is expected to announce, any minute now, that he has tapped GOP Rep. Roger Wicker to replace Trent Lott in the Senate.

As the story develops, should Wicker in fact be the appointment, there is something in Wicker's closet that we ought to highlight.  He is a Republican Congressman so, of course, there is a matter of questionable ethics hanging around Wicker's neck:

Apparently, Wicker and aerospace company Aurora Flight Sciences have a questionably cozy relationship. In 2006, Aurora was Wicker's top campaign contributor; and, then in 2007, Wicker secures a juicy little earmark for Aurora. The relationship is furthered by the fact that Wicker's former Chief of Staff works for the lobbying outfit that lobbies for, you guessed it, Aurora. With Trent Lott and Chip Pickering expected to bolt to K Street, and with Republican corruption stories again flowing like water, this story has the potential to blow up should Wicker get appointed to the Senate or run for the seat opened up by Lott's resignation. Stay tuned! (HT: Cotton Mouth)

With the media more focused on horseraces than ethical issues, it is incumbent upon us to highlight what appears to be this latest section in The Republican Appearance of Impropriety Handbook's chapter on trading earmarks for campaign contributions.

During the 2006 election cycle, which resulted in Democrats winning back both the House and the Senate, one of the most effective initiatives to spur Democratic fundraising was the Use It or Lose It campaign.  The campaign urged "safe" House Democrats to contribute significant sums to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to put towards bolstering the efforts of Democrats in more competitive races.  The end result, as mentioned, was a solid, new Democratic House majority, to which the Use It or Lose It effort no doubt played a helpful role.  I'm sure it also played a very helpful role in encouraging Democratic donors to contribute all they could, seeing as many Democratic legislators were leading by example.

Republicans, particularly in the Senate, were much stingier when it came to contributing to their campaign committees.  One of my favorite factoids from the '06 cycle was the case of then-Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Dick Shelby:

Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) gave $15,000 to the NRSC, leaving $11.5 million in his account even though he will not face reelection until 2010.

Dick Shelby's actions should be regarded as a cautionary tale.  Back in 2004, Shelby won 68% of the vote against token opposition, spending all of $2.6 million.  Keep in mind that he raised $9.3 million during the cycle, hence his current hefty warchest.  Though Shelby will be 76 on Election Day 2010, we can assume that, due to his stinginess, he is at least planning on keeping his options open for a re-election bid, if he is not already committed to one.  So he will need money.  But, given his ability to raise funds and the relative safety of his red-state seat, he most certainly could have afforded to cough up more than $15,000, which is the absolute minimum amount Senators are traditionally expected to contribute to their respective Party's campaign committees.

Would Shelby chipping in, say, a cool $1 million instead of the mere $15,000 have made a difference in 2006?  Given that the Senate race in Virginia, in which Democrat Jim Webb bested Republican incumbent George Allen, was decided by only 7,231 votes out of over 2.3 million votes cast, and given that the Senate race in Montana, in which Democrat Jon Tester beat Republian incumbent Conrad Burns, was decided by an even closer 2,847 votes out of over 400,000 votes cast, an extra million dollars to spend by the National Republican Senatorial Committee between Virginia and Montana could have definitely made the difference.  It is perfectly rational to suggest that, had Shelby contributed $1 million (that he wouldn't miss anyway) to the NRSC instead of just $15,000, Republicans may have very well held on to both the Virginia and Montana Senate seats and, however slimly, maintained the Senate majority.  And Dick Shelby would still be a Committee Chairman, with a hefty campaign bankroll of $10.5 instead of $11.5 million.

(Much more below the fold.)

(By the end of this post, you'll want to contribute heavily to Congressman Tom Allen's Senate campaign.  Keep the link handy.)

Susan Collins is approaching the conclusion of her second term as Maine's junior Senator, the seat she first won in 1996.  Her employment history prior to serving as a U.S. Senator includes twelve years on the staff of U.S. Senator William Cohen (R-ME), so she is no stranger to the machinations of representing the state of Maine in the U.S. Senate.

While Collins has presented herself as a moderate or centrist in order to maximize the breadth of her appeal to Maine voters, when one looks at the entirety of her record, what is evidenced is overwhelming double-talk and an undue allegiance to the far-right wing of the Republican Party and the current Bush administration.  It has become clear that Susan Collins is out of step with mainstream Maine voters and is far too comfortable being patently dishonest when it suits her political ends.

(Much, much, much more below the fold.)