I thought having to listen to her talk in the atmosphere of bigotry at varous rallies is bad enough, but now the Alaska legislature (with mostly republicans) has stated she broke no laws, but she abused her authority. Not to be repeat a thread by GQJock.. but..
Do you think this will have any bearing on the election or is McCain already on the "losing road"??
It may effect undecided voters. Right wingers will mislabel the report of the Republican-led Alaska legislature as a "partisan political attack" (meaning by Democrats) and be all the more fanatical in their support for her.
I think it will be looked upon by the majority of the voting public as another good reason to swing over and vote for Obama/Biden. Today I read the comments on Newsweek, MSNBC, and the Washington Post, about Mcpalin's nasty race, and her history up in Alaska, and I was actually suprised at what a large percentage of responders were turning against them over these subjects. Several admitted voting republican usually who were voting for Obama. Mcpalin's are sinking there own ship, and actively shooting more holes in it.
Here is another interesting aspect to the case .. there are still outstanding e-mails from Yahoo that need to be seen - note, dereliction of duty
courts get involved .. Palin scolded by judge ..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/palin-e-mails-judge-order_n_133727.htmlThe judge ordered the attorney general to contact Yahoo and other private carriers to preserve any e-mails sent and received on those accounts. If the e-mails were destroyed when the accounts were deactivated, he directed state officials to have the companies attempt to resurrect the e-mails.
"We shouldn't be in a position where public records have been lost because the governor didn't do what every other state employee knows to do, which is to use an official, secure state e-mail account to conduct state business," McLeod said after the 90-minute hearing.
"It's a dereliction of the governor and her duties," she said.
McCain has already been losing support from women & independents since choosing Gov. Palin as his running mate. And, the conservative commentators also.....
Red_Vespa saidRight wingers will mislabel the report of the Republican-led Alaska legislature as a "partisan political attack" (meaning by Democrats) and be all the more fanatical in their support for her.
Wasn't the commission made of 10 Republicans and only 4 Democrats?
Political scientists have always said that the rock-bottom support level for a candidate of either party is 39%, which is almost exactly the total that McGovern received in the 1972 election.
Today's tracking poll has McCain at 41%. He's almost at the bottom already.
It might tarnish her "pristine" image as a "outsider" a bit. She won't be to wear her virginal white on the campaign trail with the validity she tried to project before. ...
You gotta be one Rabid MF'n neocon looney to think that Palin and her husband at arms did not do everything that was stated in that report
... but as usual the republicans and there were 10 who signed that report gave her sufficient cover stating that she abused her power and violated ethics BUT broke no laws
... excuse me but I did graduate from Junior High but ain't that a contradiction in terms? The republican fun never ends
Red_Vespa saidRight wingers will mislabel the report of the Republican-led Alaska legislature as a "partisan political attack" (meaning by Democrats) and be all the more fanatical in their support for her.
Wasn't the commission made of 10 Republicans and only 4 Democrats?
I should have written: "Right wingers will continue to mislabel the report... as a 'partisan political attack.'" It already began weeks ago, with even the McCain campaign throwing the partisan label around to describe the investigation into Palin.
Red_Vespa saidI should have written: "Right wingers will continue to mislabel the report... as a 'partisan political attack.'" It already began weeks ago, with even the McCain campaign throwing the partisan label around to describe the investigation into Palin.
Well, actually, it's interesting. There is an element of politics in it, even though the charges are surely true. But the attack's main supporters aren't the Democrats---though they are happy enough to pile on---but in fact, when Palin ran for governor, she explicitly alienated the "regular" Republicans, the Don Young-Ted Stevens axis--and they are thirsting for revenge. I predict they will reassert themselves when this election is over and finish her off once and for all when she goes back to Alaska.
There's nothing I enjoy more than watching Republicans eat their own.
The trooper (Wooten) reportedly drank beer in a patrol car, Taser-ed his stepson, made threats against Governor Palin's family, etc. Do Obama fans support the trooper?
Governor Palin's firing of the state public safety official (Monegan) was legal according to the expert for the committee that issued the report. Do Obama fans think it was illegal for the governor to fire him?
Does the committee have any power over the governor? They evidently could have recommended a criminal investigation. They didn't. Are they competent to decide there were "ethics violations"? No.
So what's left? Alleged "abuse of power" and "ethics violations" because Governor Palin's husband Todd was active in attempts to get someone fired. Imagine fans of the Clintons being upset about that.
Yes the committee was largely Republican. They evidently did a decent job. Could we expect the same from a committee of Democrats investigating a fellow Democrat, say Franklin Raines? or Chris Dodd? or Barney Frank?
The media have reportedly sent people looking through dumpsters trying to find "dirt" on the Palins. This is the closest they've come to paydirt? Whoopie.
HndsmKansan saidI thought having to listen to her talk in the atmosphere of bigotry at varous rallies is bad enough, but now the Alaska legislature (with mostly republicans) has stated she broke no laws, but she abused her authority. Not to be repeat a thread by GQJock.. but..
Do you think this will have any bearing on the election or is McCain already on the "losing road"??
She allegedly abused her power because someone that worked under her refused to fire a state trooper who a) tasered his 10 year old son b) threatened her family, and c) drank on the job. WOW! Shocker! What an irresponsible Governor I could be wrong, but I suspect that most Americans would not blame her one bit for what she and her husband did -- if that is "Abuse of Power", so be it. She broke no laws. This will be old news by mid-week.
That being said, THIS is suppose to be a big deal, but Obama launching one of his campaigns in the living room of a known domestic terrorist (I know, I know Obama thought he was just "some guy who lived in the neighborhood") is suppose to be overlooked or played down????? I don't THINK so!
CuriousJockAZ saidShe allegedly abused her power because someone that worked under her refused to fire a state trooper who a) tasered his 10 year old son b) threatened her family, and c) drank on the job. WOW! Shocker! What an irresponsible Governor
This "someone" who worked under her was a Public Safety Commissioner. However, that wasn't the core of the issue, CuriousJockAZ. The issue was that the State Trooper, Mike Wooten was involved in a "nasty" divorce from Palin's sister. Palin and her husband, Todd, also accused Wooten of threatening Palin's father. But these are accusations....and there are others that have the responsibilty to investigate them.
So whether the charges about Wooten were true or not, there is considerable self-interest on Palin's part to get directly involved, when there is a chain of command of impartial officials to investigate the trooper's behavior. Further, if this were a trial, Palin would have had to recuse herself because of her personal interest.
No one is saying that Palin shouldn't have disliked the trooper or wanted to protect her sister. The issue was that it was not her role to get involved as Governor. There is a chain of command.
Please tell me that you are not so blinded by politics here that you don't realize that what she did was a gross abuse of power, and something that indicates what she could possibly do at a much higher level if McCain died and she became president.
This is not a small issue. If she had fooled around on her husband, then I would agree that it would be a non-issue and I'd agree. Suck it up, now, this is an awful thing to come out about a vice=presidential candidate.
Anyway, here's what the report, completed by a bipartisan committee and by a unanimous vote of 12-0, says, as a direct quote, according to the Anchorage Daily News:
"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda ... to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired,"
"Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. ... The term ‘benefit' is very broadly defined, and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self-interest."
jockfever saidThe trooper (Wooten) reportedly drank beer in a patrol car, Taser-ed his stepson, made threats against Governor Palin's family, etc. Do Obama fans support the trooper?
The operable word is "reportedly." How do we know this isn't a high-level case of he said-she said?
If provable, then it should have been investigated and proven long ago. If this is a bad cop, then take his badge away, through official channels.
If nothing else, it's representative of a very poor way to handle a problem, by character assassination and innuendo, lacking evidence and proper charges.
When the powers of a state governor's office are misused to address a family feud, I think it illustrates a level of incompetence and lack of official propriety that Alaska's own legislative investigators have termed an "abuse of power."
The investigators were empowered by a Republican legislature, and comprised of a Republican majority. How do you respond to their official report?
Eh, if you've already made her out to be something negative then you might feed on this nonsense. There is a suggestion that there were other reasons the one guy was finally let go ( rephrase.. repositioned ) that were specifically work related and the ex brother in law pretty much admits he was a loser. It was a personal family matter.
I remember right after Bill Clinton was elected ( the first pres I voted for ) they had a vid of him ripping the shit out of a local reporter for doing something real small. They were walking around outside and I guess the reporter casually said something that irritated the new President. What Clinton said was more of a hissy fit but behind his words he made it very clear who he was and how easily he could squash the guy. I remember thinking.. WOW, that is not the lip sucking, kind new President I had seen before. He kept yelling at the guy.. "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?" It was very intimidating to watch. Stuff happens.
So minus already disliking her for her personality or politics this is cookies and cream and I expected these findings. They let a personal family situation eat at them. They wouldn't be the first and truth be told most of us would probably try just about anything within reason to get that messed up private matter dealt with. Her situation became national headlines and there is always that door of interpretation where one may think one thing and another will find something different and think another.
She allegedly abused her power because someone that worked under her refused to fire a state trooper who a) tasered his 10 year old son b) threatened her family, and c) drank on the job. WOW! Shocker! What an irresponsible Governor This will be old news by mid-week.
That being said, THIS is suppose to be a big deal, but Obama launching one of his campaigns in the living room of a known domestic terrorist
This had got to be one of Todd's worst answers I can remember. You try and say 1) Who cares if she abused her power and she was justified anyway and 2) Try to use the feeble argument about Ayers as part of your answer. With comments like this coming from the republican side, no wonder he is going to lose the election.
jsttennis77 said They let a personal family situation eat at them. They wouldn't be the first and truth be told most of us would probably try just about anything within reason to get that messed up private matter dealt with.
I am not the first to point this out, but I understand the failure to pay child support had some part to play in their dispute. What I don't get is---if he already was having trouble paying child support, does it make sense to force him into unemployment?
jsttennis77 said They let a personal family situation eat at them. They wouldn't be the first and truth be told most of us would probably try just about anything within reason to get that messed up private matter dealt with.
I am not the first to point this out, but I understand the failure to pay child support had some part to play in their dispute. What I don't get is---if he already was having trouble paying child support, does it make sense to force him into unemployment?
It's so personal and filled full of so much pathetic shit it's one of those situation where not being involved we can use rational judgement. However, when you're really living it often times you just do what you feel is right and later on you admit you could have dealt with some issues differently. I think we'd all be hypocrites if we said we make all the right choices all the time.
They have complaints that the guy allegedly threatened them. It gets so damn harry if they were all personal friends of mine I wouldn't want to hear any of it after a while. If it was as bad as suggested I think maybe it could have come down to just wanting him to go away and the thought of him working was way down on the list of concerns or their belief was either way he'll get another job somewhere. If that was all happening in my family I probably wouldn't give a shit that he was losing money right then. I'd just want to protect my family and then after I felt comfortable with that we'd collectively make sure he was financially being responsible.
What is being missed here is that personal issues cannot be entangled with official state business. That's a basic ethic of any elected official.
Arguing the pros or cons of a state troopers life totally misses the point (but does tract with standard Republican tactics of obscuring the real issue). The only real issue is whether an elected official, in this case a state governor, used her official position to pursue a persona agenda outside regular legal channels.
The answer, according to the Republicans on a Republican-appointed investigative commission, is that she did. Abuse of power, plain & simple, per their own verdict.
All the rest is spin and rationalization. She abused her power, period.
Now if you want to dissect her ex-brother-in-law's life, fine. But please first explain a Republican charge of abuse of power against her.
I am more interested in the abuse of a state governor's official powers of office, solemnly granted to her by the sovereign power of the voters, than a lowly state trooper's abuses within his marital life. Assuming they really even occurred as his ex-sister-in-law alleges.
Are there any Palin supporters here able to defend her on the grounds I have outlined, that the Republican legislature of Alaska has outlined, without making an irrelevant and possibly slanderous detour into the life of her ex-brother-in-law?
Red_Vespa saidWhat is being missed here is that personal issues cannot be entangled with official state business. That's a basic ethic of any elected official.
Arguing the pros or cons of a state troopers life totally misses the point (but does tract with standard Republican tactics of obscuring the real issue). The only real issue is whether an elected official, in this case a state governor, used her official position to pursue a persona agenda outside regular legal channels.
The answer, according to the Republicans on a Republican-appointed investigative commission, is that she did. Abuse of power, plain & simple, per their own verdict.
All the rest is spin and rationalization. She abused her power, period.
Now if you want to dissect her ex-brother-in-law's life, fine. But please first explain a Republican charge of abuse of power against her.
I am more interested in the abuse of a state governor's official powers of office, solemnly granted to her by the sovereign power of the voters, than a lowly state trooper's abuses within his marital life. Assuming they really even occurred as his ex-sister-in-law alleges.
Are there any Palin supporters here able to defend her on the grounds I have outlined, that the Republican legislature of Alaska has outlined, without making an irrelevant and possibly slanderous detour into the life of her ex-brother-in-law?
You come off intelligent so I believe you already know that many high powered elected officials do use their position in the same manner she did when it comes to their family. You could sit in front of me and keep saying.. Yeah but... yeah but... and pretty soon a small little smile would creep over your lips and you would admit you know many of them do it as well when it comes to their family.
I work for my city and I have personally seen respected city officials privately push the envelope repeatedly when it comes to their position. I've seen them bump reservations using their name and position to get at the front. I've seen them use that position to intimidate others as needed. Do I think they are bad for doing this? It comes from the territory. Most who feel they have been abused on that level we don't hear about and the issue dies quietly. The second this woman became a national headline suddenly the one feeling abused knew they had a fighting chance with a little help from some others.
And by the way in some of that rhetoric there was a suggestion that outright they couldn't find where she had abused her role but if you looked at it a certain way some findings might suggest wrong doing.
There wasn't any surprise the majority finding would come out this way but even you personally know she's not the first and she won't be the last to do this when it comes to family.
If you disliked her before and it's anything negative about her it's just more words to jizz over. LOL
I'll be glad when this election is over. Using a scale I go up and down constantly with both guys running for president. I'm sick of the Media throwing raw meat to all the animals and watching every one go at each other. I lean one way then I lean another so come election day it should be interesting for myself who I finally do end up voting for. It won't be based on this situation and it won't be based on some SNL skit or what some quick witted internet poster came up with. It will be my personal feelings about who I think will be best for the role of President of the United States. I'm just ready for all of this to be over. I agree with the other thread about Political exhaustion. Lets vote and hopefully move fwd.
This had got to be one of Todd's worst answers I can remember. You try and say 1) Who cares if she abused her power and she was justified anyway and 2) Try to use the feeble argument about Ayers as part of your answer. With comments like this coming from the republican side, no wonder he is going to lose the election
You're entitled to your opinion but, as usual, I don't agree with it. This will be old news by Wednesday, if it isn't already.
jsttennis77 said You come off intelligent so I believe you already know that many high powered elected officials do use their position in the same manner she did when it comes to their family. You could sit in front of me and keep saying.. Yeah but... yeah but... and pretty soon a small little smile would creep over your lips and you would admit you know many of them do it as well when it comes to their family.
The argument that "everyone else does it" is the weakest you could make. First, it assumes that she did it. On that point alone she's already lost.
On the point of shared crimes, that argument no more works for Palin than the thief who comes into court saying "But others steal, too." Either you steal or you don't. Either you abuse power or you don't.
Was she caught abusing power and others not? Perhaps, but if the standard for being held to account is that 100% of all abusers of power must be held accountable, or else none at all may be, then let's throw in the towel now and say that government officials have free reign to do as they wish.
For perfect oversight and accountability in government will never exist. Do you therefore think this is a license to ignore, or forgive, all governmental abuses? God help us if we do.
jsttennis77 said You come off intelligent so I believe you already know that many high powered elected officials do use their position in the same manner she did when it comes to their family. You could sit in front of me and keep saying.. Yeah but... yeah but... and pretty soon a small little smile would creep over your lips and you would admit you know many of them do it as well when it comes to their family.
The argument that "everyone else does it" is the weakest you could make. First, it assumes that she did it. On that point alone she's already lost.
On the point of shared crimes, that argument no more works for Palin than the thief who comes into court saying "But others steal, too." Either you steal or you don't. Either you abuse power or you don't.
Was she caught abusing power and others not? Perhaps, but if the standard for being held to account is that 100% of all abusers of power must be held accountable, or else none at all may be, then let's throw in the towel now and say that government officials have free reign to do as they wish.
For perfect oversight and accountability in government will never exist. Do you therefore think this is a license to ignore, or forgive, all governmental abuses? God help us if we do.
Eh, you're just milking it and getting off on the report. As I said you'd be smiling the whole time. She was looking out for her family.
Let 'em milk it...it's already fading off the front page at CNN...I gave it until Wednesday until it's old news...I think it may actually barely make it through the weekend before this is old news.
CuriousJockAZ saidLet 'em milk it...it's already fading off the front page at CNN...I gave it until Wednesday until it's old news...I think it may actually barely make it through the weekend before this is old news.
Honestly, because the outcome was predictable I think it lost some of it's punch. I was a bit surprised the media hasn't really regurgitated this as heavily as I expected. I think the nonsense about her not really being pregnant got more time.
jsttennis77 said She was looking out for her family.
And she could have done that through the courts. Since when does an elected official get to use the powers of government for his or her own personal purposes extra-judicially, like some 18th-Century aristocrat?
And questionable purposes at that, not only outside judicial channels, but totally denying this trooper the Constitutional right to defend himself. Who besides the Palin family says he's guilty of anything? What are the official charges?
You STILL have not addressed that fundamental issue. Not surprising, since you can't, except by diversions and obfuscation.
You said that "others" have done it. And I replied that was wrong for them, too. You evade the issue, because you cannot answer it head-on.
jsttennis77 said She was looking out for her family.
And she could have done that through the courts. Since when does an elected official get to use the powers of government for his or her own personal purposes extra-judicially, like some 18th-Century aristocrat?
And questionable purposes at that, not only outside judicial channels, but totally denying this trooper the Constitutional right to defend himself. Who besides the Palin family says he's guilty of anything? What are the official charges?
You STILL have not addressed that fundamental issue. Not surprising, since you can't, except by diversions and obfuscation.
You said that "others" have done it. And I replied that was wrong for them, too. You evade the issue, because you cannot answer it head-on.
Admit it -- you and Palin are busted.
Me and Palin are busted? LOL! Sparky step away from the computer your shits oozing out of your head.
There is no debate here for ya. You're milking it. She's under your skin so if she farted in public and didn't say excuse me out loud you'd swear repeatedly she needed to be the poster child for lack of manners. Today you could go in and eat a grape in the grocery store and not pay for it. If caught no big deal in your eyes. However, if she did you'd scream LOCK HER SORRY EVIL ASS UP!
jsttennis77 said There is no debate here for ya. You're milking it. She's under your skin so if she farted in public and didn't say excuse me out loud you'd swear repeatedly she needed to be the poster child for lack of manners. Today you could go in and eat a grape in the grocery store and not pay for it. If caught no big deal in your eyes. However, if she did you'd scream LOCK HER SORRY EVIL ASS UP!
Diversion, diversion, thy name is diversion. Shop-lifted grapes are not the issue here -- abuse of governmental powers are.
But you side-step the report of the commission that found she abused her power as governor of Alaska. You side-step her personal vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law, against whom no charges have been brought.
But you see parallels in grapes. Perhaps it's you who has too close a personal relationship with grapes? LOL!
jsttennis77 said There is no debate here for ya. You're milking it. She's under your skin so if she farted in public and didn't say excuse me out loud you'd swear repeatedly she needed to be the poster child for lack of manners. Today you could go in and eat a grape in the grocery store and not pay for it. If caught no big deal in your eyes. However, if she did you'd scream LOCK HER SORRY EVIL ASS UP!
Diversion, diversion, thy name is diversion. Shop-lifted grapes are not the issue here -- abuse of governmental powers are.
But you side-step the report of the commission that found she abused her power as governor of Alaska. You side-step her personal vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law, against whom no charges have been brought.
But you see parallels in grapes. Perhaps it's you who has too close a personal relationship with grapes? LOL!
That shits still oozing out of your head. When you dream at night that Palin eats your flesh is it in color?
That being said, THIS is suppose to be a big deal, but Obama launching one of his campaigns in the living room of a known domestic terrorist (I know, I know Obama thought he was just "some guy who lived in the neighborhood") is suppose to be overlooked or played down????? I don't THINK so!
They are not playing anything down, if anything they are playing it up and out of proportion! Call him on the association fine, but it's clear the low levels McCain has sunk to "expose" Obama.
CuriousJockAZ said That being said, THIS is suppose to be a big deal, but Obama launching one of his campaigns in the living room of a known domestic terrorist (I know, I know Obama thought he was just "some guy who lived in the neighborhood") is suppose to be overlooked or played down????? I don't THINK so!
They are not playing anything down, if anything they are playing it up and out of proportion! Call him on the association fine, but it's clear the low levels McCain has sunk to "expose" Obama.
What a great read... loved it all I live in Anchorage - and here are my "local" thoughts..
Sarah was elected as Governor on a promise of transparency. Give the state “back to the people” - Open up “all meetings for all input”. Sounds good doesn’t it? When you take a look at the Governor we had prior to Sarah, ANYTHING would have been more transparent.
At first I was impressed… She did not roll over when pressured by big oil, and did open up decision-making meetings. – She was given the power, and used it. But now my view is a little more cautious. A phrase now on lips here is “power hungry”.
We all knew here, she acted within the law when she fired Monegan. He served at her pleasure. Was it an abuse of power? Legally, no, but because she came into office on a promise of transparency, when asked why, I guess felt the need to “give a reason”. (Our Old governor would have told us it is none of our business, it was his right – and that would have been the end of the story), but no.. so out came all these lame excuses – and they were/are lame. – One of the excuses? - Ready for this ?? Since she sold the famous jet she had to rely on the king air turbo plane, used by our other governors, and she states, “it was never available”. What is up with that??? Well, we are learning it was mostly due to maintenance and not that it was being used by Monegan. Other (lame) items included - "not reaching hiring quotas", "not being part of the team" yada yada yada…….
It was her right to fire Monegan, but was it right? For me it goes back to the saying..
Just because you have the right to take action, doesn’t not mean the action is right to take. Monegan is a good example of that…
Side note… The famous jet actually did NOT sell on ebay.. It was just LISTED there, and when there were no bidders, was contracted out with a private firm who sold it for 2.1 million.. ( value of the plane was 2.7 million)… hummmmmmmm.
She made a big deal about letting people know she does not hire a (state funded) cook, but she did not mention she charged the state $17,000 per diem for living at her own home. State law allows that, if she is working from home. Yep it is her right, but is it right to do? All goes to Character…
She touts she said “no thanks” to the bridge to nowhere. That is true, AFTER supporting the idea for a long time, and AFTER all the negative press she did scrap the idea… BUT did not tell the US Government to take back the earmark money? Nope, she kept it and it went into our general fund ( thank you very much) - AGAIN it is her right to do that, but is it right for her to do?
Transparency seems to be fading. The Yahoo account, the closed door meetings, telling the special investigator that she will not testify in the “trooper gate” issue.. It took less than two years, but she has had a taste of power, and is liking it - she wants more..
Bigger issues for me is her VERY conservative stance – and damage I feel that would be done if she was a heart beat away from choosing a superior court judge. DANG.. And I was depressed when George W was elected for a second term, I just can’t imagine the mayor of Wasilla being a VP.
I wonder how Vladimir feels about her??? DAMN that question alone makes me nervous.
When Sarah was nominated to be the Republican VP choice- Her approval rating in state, was mid 80%. Now down to mid 60% and that was before the results of the troopergate special investigation were made public…
I believe the writing on the wall… I believe the excitement about Sarah is fading, and I believe this election is Obama’s to loose, and I am sad to say, I believe when Sarah comes back, she will be a changed Governor, and a change that is not for the better.
Extremists Mark Chryson and Steve Stoll helped launch Palin’s political career in Alaska, and in return had influence over policy. “Her door was open,” says Chryson — and still is.
Red_Vespa said Diversion, diversion, thy name is diversion. Shop-lifted grapes are not the issue here -- abuse of governmental powers are.
But you side-step the report of the commission that found she abused her power as governor of Alaska. You side-step her personal vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law, against whom no charges have been brought.
But you see parallels in grapes. Perhaps it's you who has too close a personal relationship with grapes? LOL!
That shits still oozing out of your head. When you dream at night that Palin eats your flesh is it in color?
Well, I guess I got as good an answer as I can expect. My mistake for haven't realized this wasn't a serious discussion. [CLICK]
HndsmKansan saidI thought having to listen to her talk in the atmosphere of bigotry at varous rallies is bad enough, but now the Alaska legislature (with mostly republicans) has stated she broke no laws, but she abused her authority. Not to be repeat a thread by GQJock.. but..
Do you think this will have any bearing on the election or is McCain already on the "losing road"??
She allegedly abused her power because someone that worked under her refused to fire a state trooper who a) tasered his 10 year old son b) threatened her family, and c) drank on the job. WOW! Shocker! What an irresponsible Governor I could be wrong, but I suspect that most Americans would not blame her one bit for what she and her husband did -- if that is "Abuse of Power", so be it. She broke no laws. This will be old news by mid-week.
That being said, THIS is suppose to be a big deal, but Obama launching one of his campaigns in the living room of a known domestic terrorist (I know, I know Obama thought he was just "some guy who lived in the neighborhood") is suppose to be overlooked or played down????? I don't THINK so!
.....(sigh).....simply amazing....it's just simply amazing...
That being said, THIS is suppose to be a big deal, but Obama launching one of his campaigns in the living room of a known domestic terrorist (I know, I know Obama thought he was just "some guy who lived in the neighborhood") is suppose to be overlooked or played down????? I don't THINK so!
Is this ANYWHERE near the same ? One is a gov't sanctioned inquiry into a breach of governmental ethics and a snapshot into Palins style of governance
jockfever saidThe trooper (Wooten) reportedly drank beer in a patrol car, Taser-ed his stepson, made threats against Governor Palin's family, etc. Do Obama fans support the trooper?
The operable word is "reportedly." How do we know this isn't a high-level case of he said-she said?
If provable, then it should have been investigated and proven long ago. If this is a bad cop, then take his badge away, through official channels.
If nothing else, it's representative of a very poor way to handle a problem, by character assassination and innuendo, lacking evidence and proper charges.
When the powers of a state governor's office are misused to address a family feud, I think it illustrates a level of incompetence and lack of official propriety that Alaska's own legislative investigators have termed an "abuse of power."
The investigators were empowered by a Republican legislature, and comprised of a Republican majority. How do you respond to their official report?
According to Governor Palin's attorneys the report, prepared by some dude named Branchflower, is "misleading and wrong on the law."
There are indications of partisan politics. Reforms make enemies. Several of the key senators on the committee get money from a government employee union. That union has a big grudge against Governor Palin for refusing union demands as part of her campaign for more efficient government.
The "abuse of power" phrase was evidently chosen because it makes for a better headline than the phrase "ethics violation." Ethics violations involve financial gain. There is no financial gain alleged here.
It's possible that several of the senators abused their power by using tax money to bring an ethics charge for partisan political reasons, a scheme which is specifically barred by the ethics law.
Monegan was "carrying water for the union" and thwarting the Governor's reforms. The report dismisses the idea that he was reassigned for failing to fire the dangerous trooper. His reassignment was found legal.
This is starting to remind me of the hot air about President Bush firing the US attorneys. Start the hearings, start the special prosecutor talk, start the impeachment talk. Nah, just start the partisan politics reality check.
Congrats to the posters above who predicted this would quickly be a non-issue. And watch out for the stampede of posters apologizing for slamming the Honorable Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin violated no ethics laws when she fired her public safety commissioner, the state personnel board concluded in a report released Monday. "There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the report says.
jockfever saidCongrats to the posters above who predicted this would quickly be a non-issue. And watch out for the stampede of posters apologizing for slamming the Honorable Sarah Palin, Governor of the State of Alaska.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin violated no ethics laws when she fired her public safety commissioner, the state personnel board concluded in a report released Monday. "There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the report says.
Do you realize that the SPB review was the one that Palin originally wanted to investigate Troopergate.
Why may you ask? Because the SPB is part of the executive branch in Alaska. In fact, guess who appointed the three people who make up the SPB?
I really don't know, assuming McCain does lose tomorrow (at least at the moment the odds seem assured), I think he was likely on a losing path already. Obama had already tied McCain to Bush's policies. McCain never really did anything to distinguish himself. His comments when the economy took its sharp downward plunge was amateurish. And for a man running on "Country First" and a strong foreign policy, he really shot himself in the foot by putting forward Palin. It all played together. All of these decisions seemed bad, so Obama appeared to be the reliable one.
I dont care who she fired or lied to, all politicians have some sleazy dealings in their past, Obama, McCain, all of them....it's more about the fact that she is an extremist religious nut, scary as hell and she has scared off many voters. The base she has excited is composed of the super crazed, foaming at the mouth right wingers.
