In an August 29 article, the Associated Press reported that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "opposes gay marriage -- constitutionally banned in Alaska before her time -- but exercised a veto that essentially granted benefits to gay state employees and their partners." However, the AP did not note, as the AP had previously reported, that the bill she vetoed in December 2006 was a response to a 2005 Alaska Supreme Court ruling that the state's policy of denying spousal benefits to same-sex partners of public employees violated the Alaska Constitution. The bill would have prohibited state officials from granting such benefits despite a 2006 state Supreme Court order requiring them to issue regulations granting benefits pursuant to the 2005 decision by January 1, 2007. Further, the AP did not note that Palin stated that she vetoed the bill because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that it was unconstitutional, not because she believed same-sex partners of public employees should receive benefits. Indeed, Palin's office stated in its veto message: "The Governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court." Further, the AP did not note that as a candidate for governor, Palin also reportedly supported a ballot question banning benefits for same-sex couples.

In a November 2006 article that provided a timeline of the court's ruling and its implementation, the AP noted that in 1998, Alaska voters passed "a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages." The AP wrote that after lawsuits were filed on behalf of same-sex couples arguing that "it's unconstitutional to require a couple to be married in order to get government employment benefits," the Alaska "Supreme Court unanimously rule[d] [in October 2005] it's unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees." The AP wrote of the ramifications: "Anchorage officials begin steps to offer benefits; state says it needs more time. Supreme Court eventually gives until Jan. 1, 2007, for state to comply with the ruling."

In November 2006, the Alaska House and Senate passed HB4001, an "Act prohibiting the commissioner of administration from adopting, allowing become law, or implementing regulations that grant or extend employment-related benefits to same-sex partners of state employees and members of the state retirement systems unless expressly authorized by statute."

Palin vetoed the bill and in a December 28, 2006, release explained: "The Department of Law advised me that this bill, HB4001, is unconstitutional given the recent Court order of December 19th, mandating same-sex benefits. With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office. ... In the Department of Law opinion passed along to the Governor, Attorney General Talis Colberg writes, 'the bill ... effectively eliminated the regulatory process as a way to comply with the Court's order to provide same-sex domestic partner benefits for state employees and members of state retirement systems.' " From the release:

"The Department of Law advised me that this bill, HB4001, is unconstitutional given the recent Court order of December 19th, mandating same-sex benefits," said Governor Sarah Palin. "With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office."

HB4001 passed during the special session of the Legislature in the final month of the Murkowski administration. The bill prohibited the commissioner of the department of administration from adopting same-sex regulations, allowing them to become law, or implementing them. In the Department of Law opinion passed along to the Governor, Attorney General Talis Colberg writes, "the bill ... effectively eliminated the regulatory process as a way to comply with the Court's order to provide same-sex domestic partner benefits for state employees and members of state retirement systems." Colberg further states that the December 19, 2006 order is "legally sufficient to authorize the commission of administration to expand state employee health benefits or change the retirement systems to provide benefits for same-sex domestic partners."

The Governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court. It is the Governor's intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue.

The Court-ordered regulations are already in effect in accordance with the December 19th order.

In a December 20, 2006, release about the Alaska Supreme Court's December 19 order. Palin's office stated:

"The Supreme Court has ordered adoption of the regulations by the State of Alaska to begin providing benefits January 1," said Governor Palin. "We have no more judicial options. We may disagree with the rationale behind the ruling, but our responsibility is to proceed forward with the law and follow the Constitution."

[...]

"I disagree with the recent court decision because I feel as though Alaskans spoke on this issue with its overwhelming support for a Constitutional Amendment in 1998 which defined marriage as between a man and woman. But the Supreme Court has spoken and the state will abide."

A January 1, 2007, Juneau Empire article reported that Palin vetoed the bill despite "her opposition to equal benefits for gay and lesbian government employees."

As a candidate for governor, Palin reportedly supported efforts to prohibit state benefits for same-sex couples. Noting that "the Alaska Supreme Court ruled the state couldn't deny spousal benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees," the Anchorage Daily News reported on August 6, 2006, that Palin believes "[e]lected officials can't defy the court when it comes to how rights are applied, she said, but she would support a ballot question that would deny benefits to homosexual couples. 'I believe that honoring the family structure is that important,' Palin said. She said she doesn't know if people choose to be gay." The Daily News further reported on October 31, 2006, that "Palin said that when voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman eight years ago, many believed they were also implying that a gay partner shouldn't get state benefits. 'I wouldn't oppose at all the voters going back to the ballot box to clarify that,' she said during a KTUU Channel 2 debate Sunday."

From the August 29 Associated Press article:

Palin had been in the running-mate field but as a distinct long shot.

She brings a strong anti-abortion stance to the ticket and opposes gay marriage -- constitutionally banned in Alaska before her time -- but exercised a veto that essentially granted benefits to gay state employees and their partners.

"She knows where she comes from, and she knows who she works for," [Sen. John] McCain said in introducing her to an Ohio rally. "She stands up for what's right, and she doesn't let anyone tell her to sit down." He said: "She's exactly who I need."

In an August 29 article, Forbes.com Washington bureau chief Brian Wingfield asserted that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "shares [Sen. John] McCain's opposition to earmarks." However, in a March 18 Juneau Empire op-ed, John Katz -- Alaska's director of state-federal relations and special counsel to Palin -- wrote that in 2008, the Palin administration "request[ed] 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year."

From Katz's op-ed, which was highlighted by Bradford Plumer in an August 29 blog post on The New Republic's The Plank:

In my opinion, earmarks are not bad in themselves. In fact, they represent a legitimate exercise of Congress' constitutional power to amend the budget proposed by the president.

Recognizing there have been instances of earmark abuse, Congress has instituted reforms to bring greater transparency and accountability to the process. These include the identification of each earmark's sponsor and a prohibition against earmarks inserted into the budget without public discussion.

Recently, members of the Alaska congressional delegation announced they would post on their Web sites the earmark requests it receives. Gov. Sarah Palin has applauded this decision.

Earlier this year, President Bush and the congressional leadership announced that the total number and dollar amount of earmarks must be reduced significantly.

The Palin administration has responded to this message by requesting 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from about $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

Further, the governor has insisted that each Alaska request must demonstrate an important federal purpose and strong public support.

We also have heard that, wherever possible, a state or local match should be provided. The state's budget requests incorporate this principle.

So, it is important to note there is no longer a "free lunch" at the federal level. Most federal requests have state or local budget consequences as well.

[...]

The governor is very much aware of the importance of the federal budget to virtually every Alaskan. In responding to the new realities, we are not abandoning earmarks altogether but are seeking to constrain and document them in the ways discussed here.

Wingfield also wrote that Palin "oppos[ed] the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere.' " However, Media Matters for America has noted that while Palin canceled the project for a proposed bridge between Ketchikan, Alaska, and Gravina Island in September 2007, Palin reportedly supported it during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign and suggested that Alaska's congressional delegation should continue to try to procure funding -- which was authorized by the federal government in 2005, but never appropriated -- for the project.

From Wingfield's August 29 Forbes.com article:

Palin also shares McCain's opposition to earmarks, opposing the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," a pet project of two titans of Alaska politics, Rep. Don Young and Sen. Ted Stevens.

"I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to nowhere," said Palin, who describes herself as a foe of the "good-old-boy network."

An August 29 article posted on the Wall Street Journal's website asserted that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin "highlighted her opposition to a much-derided congressional earmark for her state" and uncritically quoted her assertion, "I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere." In fact, during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Palin, whom Sen. John McCain has chosen as his running mate, reportedly supported the project for a proposed bridge between Ketchikan, Alaska, and Gravina Island and suggested that Alaska's congressional delegation should continue to try to procure funding -- which was authorized by the federal government in 2005, but never appropriated -- for the project.

As governor, Palin in September 2007 "directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island instead of proceeding any further with the proposed $398 million bridge," but in a questionnaire published in the October 22, 2006, Anchorage Daily News (accessed from the Nexis database), then-gubernatorial candidate Palin answered the question, "Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?" by writing: "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now -- while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

Similarly, according to an October 5, 2006, Anchorage Daily News article, Palin supported the bridge project during a 2006 gubernatorial debate:

As for the infamous "bridges to nowhere," [debate moderator Steve] MacDonald asked if the candidates would forge ahead with the proposed Knik Arm crossing between Anchorage and Point MacKenzie and Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. Each has received more than $90 million in federal funding and drew nationwide attacks as being unnecessary and expensive. He also asked if they support building an access road from Juneau toward -- but not completely connecting to -- Skagway and Haines.

"I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for," Palin said. She said the projects link communities and create jobs.

Still, Palin warned that the flow of federal money into the state for such projects is going to slow.

Further, an October 20, 2006, Associated Press article (accessed from the Nexis database), reported that "Republican Sarah Palin's spokesman, Curtis Smith, said Palin supports the Ketchikan bridge project."

Additionally, a September 21, 2007, press release announcing that she had "directed the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to look for the most fiscally responsible alternative for access to the Ketchikan airport and Gravina Island" also included the following comment from Palin:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

From the August 29 Wall Street Journal article:

She called herself an "average hockey mom," and introduced her husband, Todd, and spoke of her five children. That includes her oldest son, Track, who is about to deploy to Iraq. "Todd and I are so proud of him and all the fine men and women serving this country in uniform," she said. The crowd replied with chants of, "USA! USA!"

She also noted her efforts to fight corruption and highlighted her opposition to a much-derided congressional earmark for her state that Sen. McCain loves to hate as well. "I told Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere," she said. Gov. Palin also took on her state's political establishment that had been rocked by an FBI corruption investigation.

In reporting on Sen. John McCain's decision to name Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, several media outlets have taken the "maverick" label the media have frequently and uncritically applied to McCain and affixed it to Palin as well. For example, in an August 29 Associated Press article, writers Liz Sidoti and Beth Fouhy reported, "Republican John McCain introduced first-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate today, a stunning selection of a fellow maverick designed to get an edge in the increasingly competitive White House race."

Other media outlets adopting the maverick frame to Palin include:

• Referring to Palin during the August 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews claimed, "I think she is a maverick," and added, "[T]he several years she's been in public life has been that of a maverick, someone taking on the good ol' boys. ... Every time one party runs the show, it gets corrupt, and she was challenging it."

• Discussing the choice during the August 29 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Kevin Corke said of McCain: "I'm thinking he likes this idea that she's also a bit of a maverick."

• During the August 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer uncritically asserted, "Republicans call her a uniter and a tough maverick."

• During the August 29 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto asserted, "First, the maverick. He picks a maverick."

• An August 29 Detroit Free-Press article was headlined "McCain chooses maverick Alaska governor to be his vice president."

• In an August 29 post on the washingtonpost.com blog The Fix, staff writer Chris Cillizza claimed, "In choosing Palin, McCain also doubles down on the maverick argument; Palin is the face of reform in the Republican party nationally and is clearly not of Washington -- a key element of her biography given how negative voter sentiment toward the nation's capital is currently."

From the August 29 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

HARRIS: Look, she went to went to the capital, she went to Juneau and she upset whole lot of people, because she flipped over that gravy train, apple cart that had been stuffing the pockets of the status quo in Alaska for years and years. She put an end to all that. She upset a lot of politicians in Juneau, and this is now -- you know, they're now going after her.

STEVE McMAHON (Democratic strategist): But Todd, Todd.

MATTHEWS: I like a lot -- I think she is a maverick. I --

McMAHON: That's not what she's being investigated for.

MATTHEWS: Not in this case, but you're narrowing it down to the one concern, and I share that it is a concern. But her record in public office -- the several years, not the many years -- but the several years she's been in public life has been that of a maverick, someone taking on the good ol' boys, the build-- the corrupt syst-- I'm sure -- every time one party runs the show, it gets corrupt, and she was challenging it.

HARRIS: Look, this is a year where the status quo in Washington -- Congress has a 9 percent approval rating. The president's approval rating is in the mid- to high 20s. The public wants mavericks. They want people who are coming from outside of Washington, in terms of their values, and she certainly brings that to the ticket.

From the 3 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on August 29:

CORKE: You've got to say she appeals to a strong number of women supporters, Clinton supporters, especially women. And I'm thinking he likes this idea that she's also a bit of a maverick, guys. I mean, she -- here's --

REV. JOE WATKINS (MSNBC political analyst and Republican strategist): That's right. Absolutely.

CORKE: -- somebody who's a hockey mom. She's a little, maybe, outside of the Washington, Beltway reputation, perhaps. But look, she's also somebody who's taken on the bad guys, the -- I don't want to say they're unethical, some people would say -- some of the unethical leaders in her own state. And so I think that probably helps her. Joe, what do you think?

From the August 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: They're raising the balloons here in St. Paul at the Xcel Energy Center in preparation for John McCain and his new running mate, Sarah Palin. Republicans call her a uniter and a tough maverick. Now that John McCain has picked the Alaska governor, many people want to know more about her. She's the first female ever chosen for a Republican presidential ticket. She's serving her first term as the first-ever female governor of Alaska. And at the age of 44, Palin is actually younger than two of John McCain's children.

From the August 29 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:

CAVUTO: First, the maverick. He picks a maverick. Get this: She's pro-drilling, but demands oil companies share more of their dough. A Republican governor, but not afraid to take on her state's Republican senator over a bridge to nowhere. Her hubby's lifetime union; she's lifetime NRA, pro-life, anti-waste, full-time thorn in the side to the establishment.

Now, does that ring a bell? Something tells me this newly announced ticket rang more than a few today.

Referring to an ad released by the McCain campaign on August 28 in which Sen. John McCain congratulates Sen. Barack Obama on receiving the Democratic presidential nomination and says, "Tomorrow we'll be back at it, but tonight, Senator, job well done," CNN Newsroom co-host Tony Harris said on August 29: "I thought it was a nice touch to see the John McCain ad congratulating Barack Obama on the historic achievement. I thought it was a nice touch. I guess some would quibble with it, but I won't be one of those." However, Harris did not note that, notwithstanding the ad's suggestion that McCain was taking the day off from attacking Obama, the McCain campaign did attack Obama on August 28. Indeed, during a commercial break in the 4 p.m. ET hour, CNN aired a McCain campaign attack ad "Higher" that asserts of Obama: "He's ready to raise your taxes, but not ready to lead."

In the "Convention Night" ad, McCain stated: "Too often the achievements of our opponents go unnoticed. So I wanted to stop and say, 'Congratulations.' How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day. Tomorrow we'll be back at it, but tonight, Senator, job well done." Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of television and print media referring to the congratulatory McCain ad without noting that the McCain campaign issued negative ads on the "historic day," to use McCain's own words, the 45th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

As Media Matters noted, the McCain campaign also ran attack ads throughout the night in various television markets. For example, the "Higher" ad ran on Washington, D.C.'s NBC affiliate TV station prior to the network's coverage of Obama's speech. The same ad ran that evening on network TV affiliates in Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh.

In addition to running television ads, the McCain campaign released a Web video yesterday that purportedly shows that Obama does not "have the experience and judgment to be president." In an August 28 press release, the McCain campaign stated that the video -- titled "Remote Control" -- "features Democrats, in their own words, questioning Barack Obama's ability to lead in this dangerous world. ... Democrats rightly said Barack Obama did not have the experience and judgment to be president." As Media Matters for America noted, the press release itself is featured on McCain's website below McCain's convention night video about Obama. Additionally, August 28 posts on the McCain campaign's website mocked the stage at Denver's Invesco Field, where Obama gave his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination for president.

Moreover, following the conclusion of Obama's acceptance speech, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued a statement criticizing the speech and accusing him of making "misleading claims."

From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the August 29 edition of CNN Newsroom:

HARRIS: Yeah, and I thought it was a nice touch.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX (CNN White House correspondent): Never thought they'd --

HARRIS: Yeah. I thought it was a nice touch to see the John McCain ad congratulating Barack Obama on the historic achievement. I thought it was a nice touch. I guess some would quibble with it, but I won't be one of those. Suzanne Malveaux with us this morning, Suzanne, terrific work in Denver and great to talk to you this morning. Alex Castellanos is with us now. He is a Republican media strategist. He's joining us from -- from New York, and Alex, good to talk to you, good see you again. It's been a while.

CASTELLANOS: Good to see you.

HARRIS: You know, I'm curious in a couple of things with you this morning. Let's talk about, if you would, some of the things that you believe Barack Obama did well last night. And then, let's talk about some of the areas that you think are open to attack next week.

CASTELLANOS: The list of things he did well is a long list. We could be here a while. It was -- it was a terrific speech. And you know, even from the Republican point of view, we should -- we should cede him that. He demonstrated strength --

HARRIS: Hey, Alex, did you think it was a nice touch -- I thought it was, and I'm sure some will quibble, but I thought it was a nice touch for John McCain to acknowledge the accomplishments and the historic nature of last night.

CASTELLANOS: Very much so, you know, and we saw that from both sides. Obama reached out. I thought he drew his differences with McCain sharply but respectfully, and I thought Senator McCain did the same thing from the other side of the aisle and said this is an important day for the country, we've -- it shows progress that we've made in some important areas and that maybe -- maybe there are things we can all agree on and achieve. So yes, I thought it was -- it was something that's been lacking in our politics a little bit, and it was nicely done.