I've since defended Jeanne Devon, the founder of one of Alaska's great blogs too many times to recount here. Some have been frustrating, others hilarious. When Alaska legislator Mike Doogan outed Devon, whose identity I was protecting, along with many others, I published my email exchange with Doogan in which he played me along, trying to find out who AK Muckraker was. In 2008 and 2009, at a fair number of events I hosted, I introduced Devon to people only on the condition that they keep her anonymity.
During that time span I also advised AKM to be prepared to be outed eventually, as it was almost certain to happen. At one of those conversations, I also brought up the fact that I could not join Alaskans for Truth, as the relationship between Jeanne as an anonymous supporter of that organization, tied with her husband's role as treasurer did not meet my transparency test.
II. Maybe that was when things began to go downhill. Last year I complained to Jeanne that Steve Conn's scathingly critical obituary, published at The Mudflats, of the recently departed Sen. Ted Stevens contained inaccurate information. I requested that that portion of the article be changed or withdrawn. Conn, who I admire, wrote:
When Ted was US Solicitor for the territory, he gave free rein to the AEC’s Project Chariot and its related radiation experiments on Alaska Natives and their subsistence lifestyles.There is no evidence whatsoever to support that very damning statement. It seriously marred what was otherwise the best hostile critique of Stevens' legacy. Devon never wrote back to me about the article. Instead, Shannyn Moore emailed me, in an exchange about the importance of accuracy, "Who cares?"
Conn did care. At least enough to correspond with me at length about his statement, which he never was able to back up with any proof.
Soon afterward, Progressive Alaska was removed from the list of Alaska blogs at The Mudflats.
III. Recently, Devon claimed that Alaska Rep. Vic Kohring, in regard to the 2008 legislative session's HB 300, introduced by Kohring:
When Republican Representative Vic Kohring stated about the legislation that “It’s critical all members of the Commission have a fundamental understanding of the industry they regulate, and this legislation helps accomplish that.” It is quite clear to whom he was referring."Again, this was part of an otherwise sturdy article. But it was false information. I wrote about my remembrance of the bill the next day:
This statement is intriguing, as I remember talking to Vic Kohring about that bill at the time. He still was in Palin's camp, so if it is clear to Jeanne why Kohring directed this legislation against Palin's shortcomings, it must be part of Frank Bailey's revelations.I was going to leave it at that, but a friend informed me that this inaccuracy miffed Vic. I contacted Vic, and he wrote:
My legislation was not a personal matter between Sarah Palin and myself. In fact, she had nothing to do with my drafting and filing of the bill, despite what those who claimed otherwise (that it targeted her because of her lack of experience in the oil industry, etc.) and despite the claims made by the author of the recent "Mudflats" article (that Sarah was the obvious reason for the bill, etc.).I wrote to Jeanne, citing my concerns from my PA post. She wrote back:
-- The Mudflats article also referred to the bill as the "No More Sarah Palin Bill," a term I've never before heard of until reading the article.
I can't discuss that with you at this time Phil. I'm sorry.I wrote back:
My contact(s) remember differently regarding the name of the bill, and I'm not at liberty to reveal them.
Jeanne,She wrote back:
I've been asking around, and none of my 2006 legislative session contacts remember HB 300 being called the "no more Sarah Palin Bill" then. Some had never heard the term before. Enclosed is my letter from the bill's framer.
Would you be willing to share with me who told you the bill was then called this? And who told you that Vic was "clearly" referring to Palin or her lack of expertise when he wrote the phrase “It’s critical all members of the Commission have a fundamental understanding of the industry they regulate, and this legislation helps accomplish that”?
I will be happy to make a correction.IV. I've been trying to find out where Frank Bailey is donating his money from the sale proceeds of Blind Allegiance to. I've tried to get through to three talk radio appearances he has been on, to ask him "Can you describe the charity you claim your proceeds from your book are helping?" He has claimed in some of his right-wing appearances, where he was assailed for profiting off of the book, and off of the emails he kept from his state employment, of benefitting in unsavory ways, that the money is going to a "good cause." His replies have been to refer to some sort of charity, and to tie that to his fundamentalist Christian precepts, which he feels he represents and Palin does not.
This afternoon, Shannyn Moore hosted Jeanne Devon at the Sunday Firedoglake Book Salon. They were there for two hours, to take questions from readers of the very progressive blog.
I showed up, and asked:
Bailey’s appearances promoting the book on conservative venues have been notable for his statements about his colleagues in the project, his projection of their political views, and his plans to use his profits to further his religious beliefs.My response was from Moore, not Devon:
On the Dana Loesch radio program, he stated “there is no way you can possibly think this was written by people who are not conservative.” Does that bother you that Bailey is calling you a conservative on right-wing radio?
He also stated that his profits will go to advance his cause of fighting Alaska laws which allow teens raped by their stepfather, for instance, to be able to seek medical attention without having to go through the immediate family. He has also stated he believes strongly in rape victims having to bear the child of their rapist, so one might assume he will support people who support that with his profits. Do you know otherwise? How is he going to use his profits? Perhaps you can convince him to donate to firedoglake?
He has also stated more than once that he has been working on this project for over a year and a half with his “co-authors.” When did you start discussing this project with him or his agent?
Rebecca Mansour, from SarahPAC claimed two weeks ago that Bailey had first approached her about a book on Palin, but that it was to be pro-Palin. Mansour has not presented documentation to back up her assertion. Has Bailey shared his thoughts on Mansour’s claim with you?
Rebecca lied. Franks said so on my show the day that came out. You know Jeanne isn’t a right-winger. So does Frank.I responded:
I wasn’t asking youJeanne, to her credit, finally responded:
Frank definitely knows I am not a conservative. This book conveys his thoughts and feelings. If he actually called me a conservative during an interview, I’m sure he’d be the first to say he misspoke. It’s clear in the book where the authors are described where we stand.I wrote back:
It’s none of my business where Frank donates money. It’s only my business where I donate money. :)
The claim by Rebecca Mansour about Frank approaching her to write a book is a complete fabrication. I told Frank she’d said that and he was completely stunned. Totally false.
Thanks for your reply. I too believe Mansour just made it up out of thin air.Jesse Gryphen has taken up this subject, in his blog post on the book salon:
"It’s none of my business where Frank donates money"
— but those who choose to purchase a product might not want some of the money to go to support anti-gay, anti-choice foundations or donation caches such as Bailey is describing he is doing with his profits from the sales. Are you suggesting fdl readers should “put all that behind us” and “move on”?
Update: Okay everybody hold off on condemning Frank over this supposed "donation to fight for parental consent, even for incest victims."
Phil called me before he went over to FDL and said he thought it was mentioned in the back of Bailey's book, though HE had not yet seen it. If it is I have not been able to find it so far.Jesse confused what I revealed about the Dana Loesch interview with what I said about other interviews Bailey has given. And I have not read the book, and kindly asked Jesse, who I thought might have a copy, to look for me. Thanks, Gryph.
He also said Frank mentioned it while being interviewed by Dana Loesch. I just listened to the interview and (unless I missed it) there was absolutely no mention of this. (You can listen for yourself here.)
I also just received an e-mail from Jeanne Devin and she has never heard anything about this.
So before we all go off half cocked, let's make sure this information is accurate. Right now Phil is the SOLE source of this information. I know that Frank is a supporter of parental consent, but I have NO concrete evidence that he is donating the proceeds of this book to that cause.
V. So - where is Frank donating this money, if he isn't pocketing it? Based on what he has said on radio shows I've monitored, it is going to fundamentalist Christian causes that he supports. And based upon what Devon wrote at fdl today, "It’s none of my business where Frank donates money," I recommend holding off on buying that copy of this magnificent redemptive tale of a Christian fundamentalist who is totally anti-pro-choice, anti-gay rights, and a host of other things, until the curiosity Moore and Devon have so notably lacked is satisfied by someone more willing to play more than footsie with this creepy past fixture of government run amok, and current or future fixture of what we need to know far more about.
On the other hand, maybe Shannyn is still thinking, "Who cares?"
Update: Apparently people finally are interested in where Frank's money might go. From the Immoral Minority:
Update 2: I just heard back from Jeanne again.From the comments at Jesse's article:
Bailey has NO plans to donate any money to Pro-Life programs of any kind.
I have no idea why Phil made this accusation, but it has NO validity, and was NOT found in the two places that he identified such a statement could be found.
To repeat, this is a FALSE statement, and should not keep anyone from purchasing this book.
I think that Phil was making a leap that since Bailey is a "Fox Conservative" and supported our recent Parental Consent Initiative, that Bailey would naturally donate money to a cause that he supports. When Edward Teller's (Phil Munger) comment showed up on the FDL Salon today, it seemed more as if Edward/Phil was inferring rather than actually stating a known fact regarding how Bailey would actually spend his book profits.from the comments at this one:
Of course, I could be wrong, but this was the way I read it as it was happening on the FDL Salon comment board.
Everyone has been aware for quite some time that Bailey is very christian and very conservative; what cause would anyone expect him to donate to? Planned Parenthood? Obama's 2012 campaign? Nope he's diametrically opposed politically to nearly everyone that posts here or at Mudflats and he would naturally support causes and organizations that reflect his personal and political interests.
I'm just amazed that people are so surprised and so reactionary towards where Bailey would possibly spend his money. He's not like us, not at all. Some of you may have christianity in common with him but politically most of us don't roll his way. The way it seems to work on all of these various anti-Palin blogs is that is someone has a dislike or distrust of Palin then they are welcomed with open arms, regardless of their background, philosophy, political leanings or even personal reputation. If you hate or distrust Sarah, you're one of us. Well, we have that one thing in common with Frank Bailey; that one thing and that's it. Live with it. It is none of our business how Frank spends his book profits. If you don't agree then don't buy the book.
Shannyn Moore said...
Shame on you, Phil.