Sen. Ted Stevens, right, answers a question during a congressional debate in Anchorage, Alaska Thursday Oct. 30, 2008 as Democrat candidate Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich listens. (AP Photo/Al Grillo)
by Frank James
The freshly minted convict Sen. Ted Stevens had a debate in Alaska last night against Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. One of the most interesting parts of the debate came early when the longest-serving Republican senator said he wasn't convicted.
He was asked what he would tell the Republican presidential ticket Sen. John McCain and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin who have both called on him to resign following his being convicted by a jury in federal district court on seven counts of failing to disclose gifts on his Senate disclosure forms.
He answered with this whopper:
I have not been convicted of anything.
I would tell them that I understand that they make statements during the heat of the campaign. And, and probably they've been a little misinformed by their staff. But I wouldn't hold it against them. I understand what they're doing. They're trying to get elected.
I would have to say John, and, and Sarah, I understand.
When an incredulous reporter asked him if the reporter had heard him correctly, was the senator really saying that McCain and Palin were cynically calling for his resignation for merely political reasons, Stevens said "yes."
Later, he said:
I'm not going to step down. I have not been convicted. I have a got a case pending against me, and probably the worst case of prosecutorial -- misconduct by the prosecutors -- that is known. I had a talk this afternoon, with one of the attorneys here, a former U.S. attorney, who told me he was appalled by what went on in that case.
So I think you'll find out. I will succeed and I will be found innocent.
This is denial the size of Alaska's Denali/Mt.Mckinley, the tallest mountain in North America. The senator may not want to accept it but he was convicted.
Denali National Park road a few miles east of Camp Denali in Denali Park, Alaska, in this undated file photo. (AP Photo/Al Grillo/FILE)
His conviction wasn't suspended pending appeal. He's a former prosecutor. When he won convictions would he have agreed that those convicted actually weren't? Doubtful.
Just because he alleges prosecutorial misconduct occurred in his case doesn't mean he can ignore the conviction. If he really believes that, he should try skipping his sentencing date. I wouldn't recommend that, myself.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
So Palin has had associations with a convicted Senator - boy you really have to question her ability to make decisions for this country.
Posted by: Gus | October 31, 2008 1:41 PM
I guess if he gets re-elected it would be easy to understand Palins popularity.
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | October 31, 2008 1:44 PM
"I have great respect for the senator," she (Palin) said. "He needs to be heard across America. His voice, his experience, his passion needs to be heard across America so Alaska can contribute more." Sarah Palin July 3, 2008
Palin is right. The country does need to hear more from Stevens so that we can see just how poor her judgement is.
Posted by: Mel | October 31, 2008 1:50 PM
Does this mean he can't vote for himself?
Posted by: John Smith | October 31, 2008 2:05 PM
You can't really try to link Palin with Stevens and try to claim that discredits her; after all, given Stevens' tenure in Senate, a good majority of former Senators would be discredited themselves. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be a link between Stevens' actions and Palin in this case.
At the very least, when you attack, use legitimate issues for the candidate.
Posted by: Hudson | October 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Posted by: Hudson | October 31, 2008 2:13 PM
Do the names Ayers and Khalidi mean anything to you?
Posted by: Liz | October 31, 2008 2:22 PM
What is Stevens really saying? He’s saying that our justice system doesn't work, that the jury process doesn't work. Well if it doesn't work for him, what makes any of us think it will work for us or some person rotting on death row? Since our justice system doesn't work, I'm sure Senator Stevens will now support a moratorium on the death penalty since this is the logical next step after realizing our court system is flawed and is convicting innocent people.
Posted by: Hilary Smith | October 31, 2008 2:32 PM
Liz, no they don't. And I'd be willing to bet you know nothing about either man. Like, perhaps, that McCain, as head of the International Republican Institute in 1998, gave Rashid Khalidi a $448,873 grant. That said, what's that have to do with old-man Stevens, a freshly convicted felon, with minimal understanding of the internet, or in his words 'e-mail,' if you recall the Broadband Deployment act of 2006, which he co-sponsored. But, no, you don't. Why should you? It just means that Palin is paling around with a convicted criminal. That's all.
Posted by: Dennis Wise | October 31, 2008 2:50 PM
He sounds seriously delusional. Perhaps his attorney should explain what it meant when he was in court and the jury said, "guilty" seven times!!! He must be drinking the same kool-aid as Palin who declared herself to have been "cleared of any wrongdoing up there." These people need to go back to the wilderness. If Stevens loses, he'll go away. We can only hope the same thing happens to her. Go O & Joe!!!
Posted by: Nancy | October 31, 2008 2:53 PM
Who does he think he's fooling? Or is he senile as well as corrupt?
Posted by: jlp | October 31, 2008 3:08 PM
Dennis...I think you and Liz are together on this. I believe Liz was trying to say what is fair for Palin to use....so is Stevens. Just my 2 cents. Which by the way is now worth 1 cent.
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | October 31, 2008 3:15 PM
Kinda reminds me of his fellow Alaskan, when asked about the ethics charges, she said she wasn't guilty of any violations, when the report said otherwise. Did Stevens learn that from Palin?
Posted by: martin | October 31, 2008 3:27 PM
Martin: Maybe there's something in those waters up there or are all their brains frozen?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | October 31, 2008 3:57 PM
Obviously what the sane world recognizes as reality doesn't affect Republicans. Reality to them is what they SAY it is, and if that means they have to lie, re-invent facts, juggle history, insert and/or omit events to make their story more plausible, then that's something they can live with just fine.
Posted by: Op109 | October 31, 2008 5:15 PM
Don't be surprised by his response. It's the Republican campaign dogma: tell lies and deny they are lies. He was convicted (ask his lawyers) and now is appealing his conviction. If he had not been convicted, he would not be appealing. For Alaska voters, it's obvious he's not "appealing."
Posted by: Mark G | October 31, 2008 5:16 PM
Stevens wasn't convicted of anything. Palin was cleared in the troopergate report. Maybe it's something in the water up in Alaska?
Posted by: sus | October 31, 2008 6:33 PM
The Stevens-Palin brand of ethics: Tell a lie a thousand times to make it appear true.
Posted by: Rene' | October 31, 2008 9:29 PM
You know, you have to question the state of journalism in our country when you have a Senator who was convicted of 7 counts who denies he was convicted coming from the same state that the Governer is convicted of abuse of the power of her office and she declares that she was cleared of all wrong doing and NOBODY ties the two story together. Talk about your low hanging fruit. I guess at this point the MSM is just so gun shy of criticizing Sarah Palin that they would rather look the other way than be accused of being sexist. How sad
Posted by: sgwhiteinfla | October 31, 2008 10:15 PM