A 263-page report released Friday by lawmakers in Alaska found that Ms. Palin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, had herself exerted pressure to get Trooper Michael Wooten dismissed, as well as allowed her husband and subordinates to press for his firing, largely as a result of his temperament and past disciplinary problems.Lots of us like Sarah Palin and have high hopes for her in this election and the next, but let's resist the impulse to slough off this report. It means something.
११ ऑक्टोबर, २००८
"Alaska Inquiry Concludes Palin Abused Powers."
The NYT reports:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६६ टिप्पण्या:
266 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»It means the Dems are rank amateurs when it comes to swiftboating.
I'm missing how this makes her look bad.
It means something, sure.
It means the Obamatrons now have another way of diverting attention away from more substantial issues.
For example, the fact that the Obama campaign has received more than $200 million dollars from "undisclosed donors", many from overseas.
But that's not important, is it? We really don't want fair elections, or the reporting that ACORN, with Obama and federal funding, is openly stealing the election would be more prominent. And Dem attorney generals would actually be doing something about it.
The far left now controls the CIA and the Department of State. They are likely to soon control the White House, the Treasury, the Justice Department and the Supreme Court.
They control the three main television media outlets, most of the cable news outlets, all the major news magazines and daily newspapers.
But thank God, we got to the bottom of Troopergate, in which report, Sarah Palin was found not to have committed any wrongdoing in her role as Governor.
Wiki has a run down on the underlying scandal.
What the trooper did was so creepy and so scary you can see why Obama doesn't want to hit Palin on it. It would only build sympathy for her.
It is the Wild West in Alaska.
It means that when you have as high as an 80% approval rating (or as low as 65% -- Congress can only dream) and you knock off some of the big guys, you piss some of the other 20% - 35% off.
Bill Dyer at Town Hall has "read the whole thing" and finds it ... well ... read him.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/134db782-50f0-42e5-8171-791804d9f
I heard months ago that Hollis French was a Democrat (and is an Obama fan). And then that he had hand picked the "investigator" Steve Branchflower. And that he actually (or is that literally?) was participating in the investigation. (Isn't that ethically a no-no?)
Branchflower will have his 125 minutes of fame and probably make it in the the annals of the special "investigators" as "bad."
As in "Don't do a Branchflower..."
I also understand tht the committee voted to release it unanimously, but it does not represent the official findings of the committee, but of one person (well, and his overseer) they had appointed.
The gist of it from what I have read at TH and elsewhere, despite the crappy ledes, is:
She (they) did / must have done something somewhere that wasn't right, had to have been...
"In spite of that, {do you get that? IN SPITE OF THAT -- meaning - Oh DAMN}
Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."
Here's a news flash for some whohaven't been following this:
Palin did NOT fire Monegan. She reassigned him (laterally, IIRC) for other clear acts which can be detailed an dated -- for insubordination (budget stuff, I think) -- and he refused to take the transfer, and he resigned.
Monegan actually stated publically, before there was political hay to be made, that he had not felt pressured by the Gov and family.
I thought language was precise for lawyers.
Maybe it is, and that's why Branchflower is so sloppy.
Sure it means something.
It would also mean something if she stood by silently while a dangerous individual whose personality problems she had direct, personal knowledge of was allowed to continue carrying a gun and a badge.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It also means that the NYT is starting to fire salvos intended to keep Palin out of the next presidential election, and the ones after that. Look for more of the same.
It means "projection". The Democrats doing the inquiry abused their power for political means-- to try to damage Sarah Palin.
I'm sorry Professor: exactly what does it mean? It is at best a contradictory report delivered by democrat partisans and has absolutelyl no legal standing.Beldar has taken it apart. Read his analysis and please tell me what part of his analysis don't you agree with? Give us your legal analysis, please.
"
Democratic state senator and staunch Barack Obama supporter Hollis French of Alaska boasted in early September that he would provide an "October Surprise" which would upset the McCain-Palin campaign. Indeed, he originally planned to time it for October 31, four days before the election, for maximum impact, until other legislators forced him to abandon that particular strategy.
Today, however, in an episode of political theater that would make Josef Stalin blush, French gave it his very best shot: The investigator he hired and directed, Steve Branchflower, has labored mightily and given birth to a bloated and redundant 263-page report which boils down, for purposes of the ongoing presidential campaign, to two paragraphs that completely contradict one another. And the one of them that's unfavorable ignores the most important — indeed conclusive — evidence on point, but goes on to provide Branchflower's guess as to whether Gov. Palin has done anything improper.
Please understand this, if you take nothing else away from reading this post: The Branchflower Report is a series of guess and insupportable conclusions drawn by exactly one guy, and it hasn't been approved or adopted or endorsed by so much as a single sub-committee of the Alaska Legislature, much less any kind of commission, court, jury, or other proper adjudicatory body. It contains no new bombshells in terms of factual revelations. Rather, it's just Steve Branchflower's opinion — after being hired and directed by one of Gov. Palin's most vocal opponents and one of Alaska's staunchest Obama supporters — that he thinks Gov. Palin had, at worst, mixed motives for an action that even Branchflower admits she unquestionably had both (a) the complete right to perform and (b) other very good reasons to perform."
Beldar.
It means that a maverick politician who offends even her own party cannot expect cover from anyone.
Even if it does mean something else how does that fit in the scale of Obama's $800k contribution to ACORN?
Whoa. It's dizzy in here from all the spinning.
Folks, it's not about the firing/"reassignment" of Monegan or even about the awfulness of the trooper (which, it seems to me, a lot of you are swallowing too quickly, given the source of the charges), it's about the pressure.
It was a sustained attack, using the authority of the governor's office, to carry out a personal agenda. Whether or not that agenda was just is immaterial.
Folks claiming this investigation was partisan are forgetting that Palin agreed to the investigation. The investigators? Twelve Republicans and 4 Democrats.
How partisan.
Wow, the first national ticket where both the P and the VP have been found to violate ethics laws.
I'm kind of amazed. I guess we'll have to use quotation marks now: the "reform" ticket? Unless we mean the candidates themselves are the target of the reform. The Reformed Ticket.
It was a sustained attack, using the authority of the governor's office, to carry out a personal agenda.
If the governor's brother-in-law threatens to kill her father, can you explain to me how that's not personal?
Just askin
No worries though. Obama is going to win anyway.
Acorn is seeing to that.
What's that Mr. Rezko, you'd like a change of venue to Alaska? Where, despite the cold, justice moves more quickly, say, before November, so that all the dirty laundry is out in public where the voters can make up their own minds? For the good of the Republic, you say? Thank you for your faith in Democracy.
I only hope that Trooper Wooten pulls Trevor over for some offense some time.
This means something, sure. It means Alaska needs to figure out which way it wants to go with its nepotism laws. Apparently, it is ok for a person with ties to a state official to get a government job, but it is then not ok for that state official to have an opinion on the person's continued employment no matter how incompetent, disturbed or just plain dangerous that person is.
Seems like a system designed to load up the payroll with drunken neer-do-wells.
It does mean something. It means that she needs to go back to Alaska and get things back in order.
I actually like her. I agree with her zero percent of the time. But I find her interesting and new.
She is not ready for the national stage. She is not qualified to be the vp. Personally, I want someone smarter than me. I realize that intelligence is overrated but she just doesn't make the grade.
While ACORN is stealing the election Nationwide and miscreants like Frank and Dodd investigate everyone but themselves in the FanFred mortgage debacle, Palin gets all the notoriety for an ETHICAL violation?
Perhaps Tony Rezko has already blown Obama's cover on something much greater than a legal move that might be ethically wrong.
But bringing that up in the press would require a balanced media free of ridiculous leftist biases, wouldn't it?
Hollis French, the Dem who headed this political investigation, bragged that it would be an "October Surprise" even before the first witness was interviewed.
He also refused to subpoena Palin's chief of staff, because he didn't want to hear that person's side of the story.
It was a complete partisan hit job. Shame on the liberal media for refusing to report that.
It was dumped on a Friday night. You don't do that, in politics, if you think it means anything. Obviously, Branchflower is embarrassed at his own report. And he should be.
First, I find it refreshing whenever a politician tries to remove a no-good brother-in-law from the public payroll, rather than put one on it.
Second, I think there were obvious public concerns here that went beyond the "personal interest," in fact contra if Wooten owed alimony in the divorce
Third, is this legislative equivalent of a SLAPP (strategic lititgation against public particiaption) lawsuit.
Finally, notice the wording of the report's finding. This really was one guy, Steve Branchflower, riffing against Palin at the behest of Hollis French.
Finding Number One
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides
The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
I see Trevor has been awakened by his email from the Obama campaign to come out and spin, spin, spin the report.
When the lead of the investigation comes out a month ahead of the results and claims there will be an "October Surprise," he's already determined what the results of the investigation will be. That means the "results" are worthless.
Not to mention that French is an avowed Obama supporter, which means that ethically he should have recused himself as he had a personal interest in the outcome. So do you really want to go into who violated ethics in this investigation?
Tell you what Trevor: you tell an undecided independent that one of your partisans found that Palin didn't break the law, and I'll tell them that one of your partisans predetermined the results of the investigation over a month before there was an actual investigation and before he had gotten any statements from the principals involved. And since we 're on the subject, we'll also give them the facts about what actually happened and that this investigation has no actual legal standing, and let them make up their own minds about it, huh?
Or don't you think that the facts speak for themselves? Did it really turn out to be such a non-issue for you and your boss Axelrod that you need to try to spin a finding that Palin did nothing illegal into something it isn't?
Next you'll find proof that Trig isn't her son or some other REALLY IMPORTANT fact that people NEED TO KNOW!!!!!!!!!
In case you haven't figured it out yet, stuff like this makes the accuser looks a lot worse than the accused. But keep making accusations if you think it helps your cause....
ACORN is responsible for Obama's poll numbers?
I'm glad you've all figured out how voter registration fraud (exposed BY the very agency responsible for it) will translate into fraud at the polls.
Build your little narrative cocoons, children.
"If the governor's brother-in-law threatens to kill her father, can you explain to me how that's not personal?"
IF it happened, then it still does not absolve Palin for using her position to get him removed.
Bat Ann what do you think it means? Are you doing the peggy Noonan gravitas shtick on us? If so stop. It is tiresome from her and it is even less becoming on you.
It means that Alaska politics is ugly and now I'm not surprised that Palin took on politicians in her own state and party.
If a guy that tased a kid, worked drunk, et. al. and can still have his job at the state, then yeah, it needed to be cleaned up.
Todd Palin is not allowed to make phone calls complaining about his brother-in-law. Sarah Palin is not allowed to fire someone she had every right to fire.
Ugly politics indeed.
Picture this: President Obama's eleven year old daughter has befriended one of the secret service agents that guard her. One day she convinces the agent to use the taser on her. The agent complies. President Obama and his wife discover this. Prsident Obama orders the head of the Secret Service to fire the offending agent. The head of the Secret Service refuses. He gets fired. Once the whole story is leaked to the press who would be criticizing President Obama? No one.
The fact that Palin had to go through hoops to fire that state trooper is deeply disturbing. The fact that he still has a job after tasing an eleven year old boy even if the boy is his (former?) stepson is wrong. The fact that the head of the state toopers can't be fired by the governor for cause is wrong.
Palin's main problem here is that she is a Republican and running against Obama. Governing as a Republican: it's like driving while black. She just got pulled over.
If Obama has this kind of reach as a candidate I pity the poor excuse for justice we can anticipate for the next so many years.
If he wins.
So, Ann, what does it mean?
There might be ambiguities in the report but what the Democrats and their symbiotic partners(the press) were after was the headline. Most people, after seeing the headline, won't go on to read the story. They'll just nod their head and do a Christopher Buckley: ...and why did McCain choose her?
This report is a very tedious read.
IANAL so reading these are hard for a layman like me, but it sure seems to be something written in great haste.
Maybe I missed it, but why did the report have to be delivered on October 10? Did his contract run out (he started investigating on August 11)?
Branchflower says that some testimony that was offered on October 6 but information could not be included in the report due to the timing of publication.
What's with the 'emphasis added' (pp. 53-54) with the comments of the judge in the divorce case taken from the 'requested portion'?
Maybe the CAC documents are more interesting reading...
Following up on the last comment by oxbay, here's the headline that greeted me on yahoo.com, which I used as my homepage:
IMPACT OF PALIN REPORT
An Alaska inquiry that says Gov. Sarah Palin abused her authority may hurt the GOP on election day.
Then, the requisite link to "expert analysis", which is offered up by an Associated Press writer we're supposed to believe is unbiased.
Naturally, the photo that adorns the headline captures Sarah Palin on the stump, caught unintentionally in a glance that makes her look shifty-eyed and untrustworthy.
I agree, it means something: These people know what they're doing.
Obviously Ann's in the tank for O. Otherwise how could a law prof look at this report and not realize it's entirely bogus? It seems pretty clear the overwhelming consensus of the comments is that this is the weakest of manufactured political "scandal".
Of course the left wing fantasists will grasp at this as "proof" that Sarah Palin, like all conservatives, is a corrupt power hungry bully. Meanwhile it's hard to find a Democrat pol anywhere who isn't corrupt as the day is long and comfortably assured that due to a compliant and dishonest press they will get away with it.
Palin's plenty intelligent. But more importantly she has qualities that are rare in politicians and completely absent on the left. For starters she has truckloads of common sense, which is infinitely more important than native intelligence alone. History is filled with highly intelligent men precipitating catastrophe.
Having read some of Titus' comments (before I realized he was a candidate for the SOB category) I can safely assert that the algae I scraped of the side of my pool yesterday has more common sense.
'but let's resist the impulse to slough off this report. It means something'-
what does it mean, ann?-
sorry barry-
I did not realize that you had already questioned ann-
Nice punt! If you think it means something, Ms. Fancypants Law Prof, what would that be?
I'm just a musician with BM and MM degrees, but I think I got it. A Democrat investigator, friend of the fired official, says Palin abused her power, but didn't break any laws, while the trooper at the root of it all has a history of aggressive and violent conduct, including threatening the Palins.
So, from Todd Palin's perspective, it means he was properly concerned and looking out for his family, while from the biased Democrat investigator with the obvious conflict of interest, it means he didn't have squat, but still wanted to get a parting shot in at Sarah Palin.
IOW, it doesn't mean diddly... unless you're a Democrat grasping at straws.
There. That wasn't so hard, was it?
It means she tried to get a guy who tazered kids for fun removed from a position of power. It means that the people who saw her reforms firsthand are even more aware of how effective she can be.
It means it's a Nothingburger, drenched in creamy Nothingsauce.
Seriously. It makes cotton candy look substantial. Anyone who read the Bill Dyer article at TownHall already figured that out.
From Branchflower's finding:
"It is well known that Sarah Palin's sister Molly Palin..." p. 52
"...divorce trial between Molly McCann and Trooper Michael Wooten..." p. 53
PDS-induced typos?
Hucbald said...IOW, it doesn't mean diddly... unless you're a Democrat grasping at straws.
I agree with what you say except that the Dems are not merely "grasping" at straws.
They control the media. They aren't grasping at straws they are lighting the straw on fire and hoping to burn down the barn.
Go to google news. The front page is filled with this anti-Palin attack.
Perhaps it means that she used her personal experience in the situation, compared it to the record and saw that something was wrong and moved an individual to a position where he would not be a continuing poor influence that would impair the workings of the department and government?
That she... acted like an Executive? Because executives utilize personal experience to help their reasoning and judgement as that is part of the job description?
Gov. Palin, doing her job... what is this world coming to when people doing their job and found at *best* to have some personal part of it, then utilizes that and the record in judgment and says: hey, this guy hasn't done such a great job not only for me but for others? You want true and impartial Executives?
Name one.
Please.
Executives are meant to use their personal judgment and experience and compare it to the larger record and balance it out. Which specifically *includes* weighing their own bias as part of that. At no point has anyone pointed to this being the sole or over-riding reason she did what she did. The record does not demonstrate that.
Executives are NOT Judges of law: they execute law within the bounds of their understanding of it.
In the meantime, Sen. Obama's waffling on his main subject of Iraq in accordance with contracts let to Rezko, with Alsammarae linked to him and Auchi's contract in Iraqi Kurdistan go almost completely unreported. Gee, you think commercial interests that Sen. Obama lobbied the Daley administration on for providing help to Rezko might be something to look at? Now that Alsammarae was convicted of felonies in Iraq and busted out of jail to come to Chitown and contribute to Sen. Obama? And Rezko has been convicted of felonies in the US?
Naw, can't look at waffling on his reason for being around... too simple for the MSM and those looking for 'real meanings' behind things.
This report is not from the legislative panel – they did not vote to approve it or endorse it.
I read the full report and it says that she did nothing wrong in firing Monaghan. It says that Todd Palin was wrong in trying to get the trooper Wooten fired (although it doesn’t show that he did anything but ask about the progress of the case and inform voice his concerns about what the trooper was doing).
It then tries to say that Gov. Palin was in violation of the ethics law for being negligent in not stopping her husband. That finding is clearly at fault in two ways: (1) The ethics statute explicitly says “one cannot negligently or accidentally violate the law”, which is exactly what the investigator accuses her of doing and (2) the statute is specifically about using office in pursuit of personal gain, and goes on to list several examples of personal gain all of which are material in nature. Nowhere in the report does the investigator explain how the Governor would have gained from having Wooten fired - he only says it would have made her happy. Which would make any action by any governor violation of the law.
Ann thinks it means something because she is a lawyer. There is no doubt that firing a guy who keeps a trooper known to have taserd a child, drank on duty, and made death threats was the right thing to do. May not have been legal, but it was right. Most of us long ago realized that the legal and the morally correct are not always the same.
Obama, on the other hand, trained many on the ACORN staff. ACORN, which sets up systems which enables, nay, it encourages bogus voter registrations.
For my money, Obama is more corrupt than Palin ever could be.
Well, I don't like Sarah Palin. I didn't like her debate non-performance, her charging victims of sexual assault, her penchant for wolf-killing, etc. Her sole contribution is inciting and encouraging racial and ethnic hatred (because of Obama's middle name) and she just smiles and does nothing. McCain wants to know who the real Obama is. I guess we know the real Palin.
ACORN is responsible for Obama's poll numbers?
ACORN is wingers latest boogey man. I mean ACORN-Qaeda. Voter fraud to the Right is black and latinos voting.
I am sorry, but there is nothing there other than revenge, and another component of the putsch.
This is what it says:
Finding Number Two
I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.
Here is that part
Good morning.
"Obama, on the other hand, trained many on the ACORN staff. ACORN, which sets up systems which enables, nay, it encourages bogus voter registrations."
One two-hour training session for which he was not paid? I'll grant you ACORN "enables" bad behavior because they often hire people who can fill out false forms, but why would ACORN "encourage" this behavior? It's clearly a huge headache for them and certainly terrible PR. ACORN (or any other registration gathering organization) is required to turn in all completed applications and they FLAG those apps they believe to be suspicious. If they didn't turn in all apps, they could be accused of tossing legitimate forms.
Again, false registration forms does not equal fraud at the polls. A form in triplicate or a form bearing the name Luke Skywalker does not ensure three votes from the same person or that the Jedi will cast a ballot.
anatarajan said...
Her sole contribution is inciting and encouraging racial and ethnic hatred...
So Obama does not bring it upon himself with the references to the images on US currency and his grandmother, the "typical white person"?
And thus arrives the Oborg to spam it up with more debunked smears.
I have to ask as did many others; What does it mean? If you think it does, should you not tell us what it is? Or are we supposed to just come up with our own 'mean something'
This report is fluff by the the MSM. How about a little coverage of Barack HUSSEIN Obama's ties to Palestinian fat cats like Rezko, Ayres and Wright.
I just don't have the heart for this discussion. People will think what they think, and unfortunately, vote for the party that has been successful, along with the complicit media in making this woman out to be some kind of an extremist to be feared.
Dreadfully ironic, I think. That is all.
Well I don't know it rises to the level of associating with people of questionabl character in the most corrupt poltical machine in America for 20 plus years, but yeah trying to get someone fired for beating up your sister, is something.
If was planning not to vote for McCain, it'd work.
"... but let's resist the impulse to slough off this report. It means something."
An assertion without merit. Try something substantive, like say, logic.
To everyone who still obviously don't even get the basic facts straight, -- read something
I did find it ironic that she was considered to have been in error for not controlling her husband.
When the politician is Bill Clinton, and the spouse Hillary, the word is that the voters are lucky to be getting "two for one". Hillary even used the her time as First Lady as evidence of her readiness to be president.
Apparently it's just wrong its Sarah and Todd Palin.
Are you joking here Ann? Where's your scholarly analysis of the Troopergate report as a law professor. I'm a lawyer and I know that it's incredibly easy to analyze and summarize this report for your readers!
Basically, this report means that Sarah Palin has been found by an independent investigator appointed by a bipartisan legislative committee with 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats to have violated Alaska's ethics law by abusing the power of her office to settle a personal score.
While Palin had "constitutional and statutory authority" to fire Monegan for any reason, she violated another law (the state ethic's law) by using her office for personal gain to get Monegan to fire Wooten (e.g. using subordinates in the Governor's office working on state time to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten, allowing her husband, a private citizen, to use the power of her office to pressure Monegan, etc.).
It was always known that Palin had the right to fire Monegan. The question was whether she violated the ethics law, and abused her power, by using her office for personal gain.
Think about this: If the Senate Ethics Committee was in session last night and released a report from an independent investigator that found that Barack Obama or Joe Biden violated Senate ethics rules by "abusing power," you right-wingers that dominate this rather parochial site would be screaming from the rafters that they both are unfit to be President or Vice-President. You know it, I know it, and Althouse knows it. The hypocrisy and dishonesty on this site is as shameless as it is transparent.
Earlier this year, a friend of a friend asked me to give her a ride to a job interview. She was having trouble getting a job because she has a criminal backround and keeps relapsing into drug addiction. I gave her a ride and it turned out to be to ACORN. A few of her friends came along at the last moment, too. None of them knew or cared what ACORN actually was - they just heard it was a place they could get a job really easily and make some extra money. I saw others walking in for the job interviews and few of them seemed to know or care what ACORN was either. Word was out to go there if you're in need of a job.
Then, all summer long I noticed ACORN people trying to get as many people to register as they could. One ACORN person would ask everyone at a bus stop if they were registered, then a few minutes later another one would come and ask all the same people. Some of the ACORN people were focusing on cute females, trying get some dates.
It seemed like they were just doing a job they didn't much care about, just trying to reach quotas and make some extra pocket money.
And I can tell you, this acquaintance of mine would probably be someone who wouldn't care if she submitted fraudulent registrations. She ended up getting a better job at a store and getting quickly fired beause she apparently stole from them.
I don't know much about everything ACORN is up to, but they did hire a lot of people right off the streets who were just people who had heard to go there if you need a job this summer. Those people probably have caused them a lot of these problems simply because they didn't give a damn.
If the ethics law says the governor can't use her influence to have a police officer who tasered his kid, drinks on the job, and threatened to kill members of the governor's family fired, the problem is with the ethics law, not the governor.
It means the media can blare headlines like ABUSE OF POWER and the discussion of details that show how silly that healdine is will be missed by people who see it on tv while they're at a bar.
So a report issued by a committee of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats is now the work of Obama partisans. And an investigation and process that started long before Obama or Biden for that matter knew what a Sarah Palin is is now swiftboating. The willful ignorance in this comment board is mind-boggling.
Obviously, this was just a big distraction, so lets get back to the a more helpful distraction of why AyersRezkoAcornChicagopolitics is important to the stability of the Union.
And I know those applicants to work at ACORN didn't know what ACORN was because I kept asking people what "ACORN" stood for and none of the people walking in for job interviews there that day even bothered to google and look up what it stood for! Which you'd think would look bad in a job interview, but they were group job interviews and I guess not much to it.
there were ten republicans on the inquiry panel.
there were four democrats.
the vote last night to publish the findings was unanimous.
yeah, i'd say it means something.
Lyndon Johnson's wife made over forty million dollars. The press reported that she was a brilliant businesswoman. Joe Biden's son gets hired to be a hedge fund manager at a cool million a year. He had no experience or expertise in this area. This is not a story.....There has been an impressive amount of coverage of the life and times of Sarah Palin. She is an interesting and attractive person. No matter how slanted the coverage, she still manages to look good. It's like trying to take an ugly picture of Garbo....In the MSM, Eisenhower was presented as lazy; Nixon as malignant; Ford as clumsy; Reagan as stupid; Bush Sr as snobbish; Bush Jr as incompetent. There is quite a variance between the judgement of history and the MSM. Sarah Palin is no more stupid than Gerald Ford was clumsy.
re: Invisible man - the report is from one man, the investigator who was hired by the head of the committee. The committee itslf did not vote to approve or recommend the report.
It means that partisan Democrats are abusing political power to prevent somebody from doing their job. A sheriff just got in trouble with the Hatch Act for merely calling Barack Obama by his full name. Meanwhile, other political operatives are free to abuse government positions to gin up controversies...
... somewhat ironic given the nature of the probe.
I don't care for Sarah Palin as a candidate (consider her unqualified), but when I saw MSNBC doing a big "breaking news" thing about this last night I just thought "October Surprise" and turned the channel. And, anyway, weeks ago InstaPundit and company had already won (in my mind, at least) the spin control battle over this story. They renamed it Tasergate from Troopergate and convinced me before this shit hit the fan.
It's hard to take such a finding seriously when the timing is so political.
it was a GOP led Committee!!!!!
what part of GOP dont you understand?
Interested Observer--
You are 100 percent right. Absolutely.
On the other hand:
a) This scandal is hard for the average joe to understand what with all the sisters-in-law and relatives;
b) The trooper was a strange and scary guy;
c) Alaska plays by Wild West rules, apparently;
d) Though it is a telling event, it was over a rather small beans in the big scheme of things;
Conclusion: It won't change the minds of any voters. McCain knew that when he picked her. Kind of a wash.
None of you here seem to have much appreciation for how ugly custody fights can be. Getting the trooper fired probably would have helped Palin's sister in her custody dispute, or at least it would have given Palin's sister the satisfaction of sticking it to him. Nobody said anything about the tasering incident at the time, but brought it up only much later, once the parties were getting divorced and there was a need to dredge up every damned thing they could to make this guy look unfit.
Yeah, if Palin and/or her husband wanted to go into divorce court and testify to all the ugly things this trooper supposedly did, then fine. Trying to achieve the same end (i.e. favorable custody determination for the sister) by trying to get the trooper fired based on incidents allegedly occurring years earlier was an abuse of power.
Abuse of Power
where have I see that before? could it be ....
NIXON!!!
you trying to tell ME that I dont know about custody battlers?
You are a pathetic MORON
I enjoy reading this comment board. I'm loving seeing the last gasps of the dying conservative movement as you diehard supports desperately defend the indefensible. The death of the conservative movement is certainly well-deserved. You people should wander in the political wilderness until you regain your sanity.
Here, you have the Republican VP candidate found in an independent report to a bipartisan legislative council to have VIOLATED THE LAW by abusing the power of her office for personal gain; yet many people who comment here don't think it's worthy of discussion. Yet, if this had happened to the Democratic VP candidate, the outraged reaction would have been almost uncontainable. You are truly dishonest people.
Some try to argue that the problem is not that Palin violated the law, but that the law was wrong and should have been violated! I'm not surprised by that conclusion coming from conservatives though, considering that their movement has embraced ignoring laws that they find inconvenient over the last eight years (e.g. torture, warrantless surveillance, extraordinary rendition, using Executive offices like the Justice Department to influence elections, etc.) You people do anything to defend the indefensible.
However, America has finally gotten sick of your extremism and lies. Prepare for a blowout of historic proportions on November 5. Go stand in the corner for a while and come back when you've learned your lesson.
Did anyone else do a double-take when seeing Colin Powell describe Ted Stevens as a trustworthy honorable guy whose word was "sterling"?
I just found it strange that "troopergate" was supposedly a bigger story, considering the disparity in the amount of "corruption" involved, in the context of Alaska politics.
Speaking of pitchforks...meh...
I think it means Camille Paglia owes us a retraction.
FREE CARLY FIORINA!
Interested Observer: you may be a great lawyer although even you admit anyone could read the report and reach a conclusion, but you aren't a very good observer. Do you know how Ann works? As someone once said, "you can't criticize what you don't understand".
I think that "Troopergate" is a phony issue crafted by phonies, but then again after growing up in Cook County, IL, I view the Obama with a level of contempt that I doubt chiblue and his ilk have enough working brain cells to begin to grasp.
The biggest advantage of the coming four years is that if Obama is only half as bad as I anticipate, the Republicans will retake the House and Senate by veto-proof margins in 2010 and by 2012 the word "liberal" will be as deep into the ash can of history as "Nazi."
Again I will state for you hard of reading,
GOP panel
GOP GOP GOP GOP
panel!!!
Original George,
Here are today's headlines from various newspapers:
Palin abused her power, legislative inquiry finds
Panel Finds Palin Abused Authority in Firing State Official
Palin Violated Ethics Act, `Troopergate' Probe Finds (Update2)
Alaska Legislative Probe Finds Palin Misused Power
Troopergate Report: Palin Abused Power
Alaska panel finds Palin abused power in firing
Palin guilty of abusing powers, investigation concludes
Palin abused power, trooper probe says
Report: Gov. Palin abused power
Body blow for McCain as Palin found to have abused powers
----
There is absolutely nothing difficult for "the average Joe" to understand about "abused her power" and "Violated Ethics Act."
Plus, this certainly will hurt Palin and McCain. It will increase her unfavorability even more, turn-off undecided and Independent voters, put her on the defensive, diminish her ability to attack Obama, destroy her "reformer" image, and further the emerging consensus that she's a pathological liar with dysfunctional family dynamics. This is devastating to Palin. I'd say it was a game-changer if it wasn't for the fact that McPalin were already going down in flames. Heh.
Hmmm.
@ Ann Althouse
It means something?
Bullshit.
Todd Palin followed the law as required for any private citizen when seeking justice against a public servant.
Pray tell me how a private citizen is supposed to act in such an instance?
What matters in evaluating someone's decision-making capabilities is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to procedure and rules and whatnot will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.
It means sound and fury signifying nothing.
Yeah, the fact that the panel was staffed with mostly Alaska GOP legislators says a lot, taking into account how much she has pissed them up by trying to cut into their corruption schemes. It does say a lot about them.
pray tell you ask?
"Palin allowed her husband and subordinates to press for his firing"
and that was AFTER the divorce casd judge told the family do NOT interfere in custody battle.
Oh, yeah, and again about those pitchforks, be careful with them. You may blind yourself and others. Wait, never mind, too late...
It means if you're a Republican and you try to defend yourself against spousal abuse, you're guilty.
That's what it means.
Get a clue.
nick wrote:
Abuse of Power
That's your distillation of 263 pages?
NIXON = Palin?
it means if you are GOVERNOR
you dont use your office for your personal benefit!
she continues the trend of GOP corruption in ALaska
she wasnt being abused
DUH!
It means "enjoy the single Party state and media". It is compulsory.
Your orders will be forthcoming.
It also means that I am very very horny.
I text messaged a trick of mine today and he and I exchanging text messages made me hard.
This was not the Costa Rican from last night but another guy I did earlier this week.
I love the fact that this guy, who is 22 and a spic, texts me and I don't understand a word he is saying. How hot is that?
He is also very tall, has a large uncut hog, and likes to have me lay on my back while his ass fucks my hog. He bends over the hog and I appreciate his long skinny legs. He is also a yeller and screamer while he is getting fucked. That turns me on. It sounds sincere and real-I appreciate that.
Also, he has a nice bush above his uncut hog. Nice and curly but at the same time tame with the smell of patchouli.
I means that although the reasons that Palin fired the guy are entirely adequate (as I recall, she gave her staff budgetary direction and he went and told someone they were getting money that she specifically had said no to... this sort of action would mean the firing of ANY employee by ANY employer... if anyone where I work was making contract and financial promises against the policy of the employer they'd be fired, too)
BUT she probably wasn't able to entirely purge her mind of all hostile thought toward Wooten and his whole situation.
And SINCE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW FOR SURE what's inside her head, she probably still has hostile thoughts about Wooten and his situation.
DUH.
I'll reconsider my capitulation to the impulse to slough it off when you stop putting the monkey on the back of your commenters.
I'm hoping that now that the investigation is over, that she's free to talk about why she fired the guy.
I'll bet she'll be persuasive about it, too.
All she said before was that it was important to be sure that public employees were serving the people. But during an investigation, can she say more than that?
It means Palin violated a (broadly worded) ethics statute in seeking the removal of a public employee for personal reasons. It means she is a politician, prone to human foibles. It doesn't mean those of us who like her need think less of her.
But it does mean her reformer image is not pristine and her detractors will have further confirmation of their attitudes.
Fortunately for those few of us not yet followers of the left, we can at least enjoy the layoffs as they escalate at the major "news" organizations.
They are propagandists only, and their demise is a delight to watch. Soon they will be gone except for teevee nooz, which few people watch anyway.
chiblue is so cute.
Even taking this in the worst possible light, Palin is so clean compared to other politicians that she SQUEEKS.
Why don't we look at all the people Obama fired and why. I bet he kept people on that undermined his efforts all the time. Not.
OH WHOOPS! He's never actually managed anything in government beyond his own personal staff!
FACTS:
* This investigation was started before she was picked by John McCain to be his VP running mate.
* The Obama campaign has NOTHING to do with the investigation.
* The Committee that voted UNANIMOUSLY for the report was majority Republican.
* This abuse of power is illegal. Not using public office for personal gain is also one of the simplest concepts of ethical and responsible governance to grasp.
These are facts. My conclusions:
* If the Republicans want to defend these offenses, they prove themselves to be not worthy of holding public office.
* Sarah Palin is not worthy of holding any office higher than the one she holds (if that).
* Sarah Palin would be dangerous as VP because she has proven susceptible to corruption and is unethical.
* "The left" is vindicated in having factually raised this affair, which in the beginning was only covered by the Alaska press and some web sites.
Trevor, if ACORN cared, they would pay per verifiable name. Did ACORN flag the problems before outsiders started noticing some of the registration problems? Or only after?
Reading through the posts here, I have to say you guys are a lawless and unethical bunch.
When a Dem does wrong, I admit it and don't the defend the offender.
This thread shows Republicans don't obey laws. This thread shows Republicans are very unethical.
I hope we bury your party deep for the sake of our nation.
The statute as it's quoted does seem that it could apply to anyone at all for anything at all that they do if they could somehow be shown to "benefit" by their own action since in this case "benefit" is defined as "get the result you want."
So elected Alaskans can only work to get things they DON'T want, that they get no intrinsic good feeling over getting done. Since, oh, helping the poor makes you feel good about yourself, maybe that counts too. And we're shown here that getting rid of someone who refused or couldn't figure out a way to fire abusive police, counts, so no one can take action over situations they have personal knowledge of.
When you know that the statute was actually written to make it illegal to get money to enrich yourself or to get non-money things to enrich and benefit yourself.
At what point does fire (but not really fire, more like, give him a different job that doesn't involve budget promises, OMG) employees who piss you off qualify as benefiting yourself?
"In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a PROPER AND LAWFUL exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."
If the dems want to defend a state trooper who tazered an 11-year-old, drank on the job, and made death threats, then I say go for it. After all, they are electing a man who associates himself with unrepetent domestic terrorists, racist preachers, Chicago crooks, perpetrators of voter fraud, so on and so forth.
Birds of a feather and all that...
If Palin, et al, had not made clear the behaviors of Wooten to his management and Wooten had, or at some point in the future, hurt someone, Palin would have been crucified: "She knew he was violent yet allowed him to continue on in a position of power knowing he was a ticking time bomb that would someday go off resulting in injury or death!".
She did the right thing.
its a matter of ethics
not how much money you make
you DO NOT USE OFFICE FOR PERSONAL USE
She did NOT do the right thing!
the RIGHT thing is OBEYING the law
you thought Nixon did RIGHT thing coveringup a minor breakin!
good keep doing that EVEIL PERSON
9-1 terrorists thought they did the righ thing and so did Ayers
THEY DID NOT
Im defending the law
the trooper was suspended in accordance with the LAW!
Yeah we get it Nick, you don't have to yell.
"It means something."
Yes, it means that if you're a Democrat, you can hire a lawyer at government expense to slime a Republican.
This one's a wash, and won't change this race, anymore than the past week of "Obama is, I mean, knows a terrorist" tactic has done.
Nick. Excitable much?
So you think that the Palins', knowing Wooten's violent tendencies, should have just kept that information to themselves instead of telling his management.
Is that what you would do?
Well wingnut libs you have once again criminalized political differences for limited partisan gain. No, don't worry this won't possibly bite you in the ass if obama gets in office. Nope, nuthin' to worry about. You are always right in everything you think and say. What could possibly go wrong?
Ann Althouse wrote: "...but let's resist the impulse to slough off this report. It means something."
It means something all right. It means that a couple of former prosecutors, Hollis French and Steve Branchflower forgot their roots.
I haven't finished the public report yet, but so far 27+ years as an appointed and elected prosecutor tells me this:
1. Hollis French, high profile Obama supporter and supervisor of this investigation, should have declared a conflict of interest and recused himself. Similarly, Branchflower's history with Monegan has apparently not been disclosed to the public or to the Legislative Council
2. Steve Branchflower, French's hand picked investigator appears to have overstepped his charge which was to incude "recommendations," not "findings" in his report. He has acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury in the matter.
3. Despite relentlessly leading the witnesses and encouraging them to speculate about Governor and Mr. Palin's state of mind, Branchflower does not appear to have made his case -- and it is clear that he WAS trying to make a case.
4. The ethics statute under which Branchflower finds the Governor "abused her power" is, of course, not an "abuse of power" provision, but an ethics provision. Branchflower actually found that the Governor acted within her powers when she demoted Monegan.
5. Violation of the ethics provision requires that an executive officer knowingly make an "effort to benefit a personal or financial interest" of him or herself or a family member.
An oversimplified, but accurate, take on this is that both Todd and Sarah Palin spoke continuously about Wooten, the brother-in-law, bringing discredit to the department, about the inadequacy of the disciplinary action taken against him and about the negative impact he would have on DPS recruiting.
Arguably, all of these considerations fall within the Governor's OFFICIAL, NOT PERSONAL, areas of interest. Branchflower simply chose not to see it that way or to even put forward the case for that interpretation.
My experience tells me that Wooten's five-day suspension did not reflect the severity of his transgressions. Moreover, I saw no evidence that Monegan or anyone else at DPS made an effort to assure the Governor that the internal disciplinary procedures were being improved to prevent similar inadequacies.
The portion of the public report that I have read reflects a lack of both objectivity and professionalism.
Sorry about the length. Given more space, I could really blow these guys up and will do so elsewhere.
I make a habit to ignore all posts where someone uses the caps-lock anywhere other than for cities, proper nouns, and the beginnings of sentences.
Also, like mickey kaus, I am repulsed by Titus' posts but can't help but read them slowly and throughly haha.
Back to "capslock" commenters. Honest, if you post in caps I assume you're a raving lunatic.
For a guy who can't possibly lose, Obama sure is working hard to crush Palin. This gives me hope, you know, that the country might not be as far gone as they want us to think it is.
uws guy wrote: '"Back to "capslock" commenters. Honest, if you post in caps I assume you're a raving lunatic.'
Well, that is certainly a logical point of discrimination that reflects a fine education and an open mind. LOL
"Trevor, if ACORN cared, they would pay per verifiable name. Did ACORN flag the problems before outsiders started noticing some of the registration problems? Or only after?"
My guess is that the process of verification is a somewhat lengthy one and takes place at the county auditors' offices, not at ACORN HQ. So paying after verification would take more time than it's worth for the people they employ. But they're probably less likely to hire someone back if they discover a pattern of abuse.
As for the flagging, like I said above, it's in their best interest to help the auditor in that verification process for a number of reasons. Their reputation, as you insinuate, is only one of those reasons. They separate the forms when they submit them into three categories: complete and trustworthy, incomplete, and likely fraudulent. It's up to the auditor to assess the latter two categories.
And again: fraud on a form does not equate to fraud at the polls. ACORN's mission is to register as many people as possible that might otherwise go overlooked. In their efforts to get as many people as possible registered, their methods will inevitably produce bad forms. Those bad forms are not evidence of malicious intent on ACORN's part.
But if you are concerned about actual vote fraud, we can certainly talk about the Bush administration's coordinated effort at vote suppression. Purging voter rolls, pushing for voter ID laws, caging votes, and intimidating US Attorneys into pursuing erroneous charges of voter fraud.
Hmmmm.
According to ACORN's spokesperson they call each registrant 3 times to verify.
...
Yeah I don't believe that crap either.
Hmmmmm.
"But if you are concerned about actual vote fraud, we can certainly talk about the Bush administration's coordinated effort at vote suppression. Purging voter rolls, pushing for voter ID laws, caging votes, and intimidating US Attorneys into pursuing erroneous charges of voter fraud."
We can also talk about attempts at invalidating absentee voters in the military by Democrats.
But that'll void your pissiness so I guess not.
And....
"pushing for voter ID laws"
Yeah 'cause requiring people to provide proof of identity to buy f--king *beer* is far more important than validating people to *vote*.
Schmuck.
It means something.
Well no, not really.
Hmmmmm.
@ synova
"I means that although the reasons that Palin fired the guy are entirely adequate"
She didn't *fire* Monhegan.
She gave him a lateral transfer to another equivalent position but Monhegan evidently didn't like the fact he wouldn't have any serious authority any longer and so Monhegan *resigned*.
I hope I'm clear on this: Monhegan *resigned* his job.
"We can also talk about attempts at invalidating absentee voters in the military by Democrats."
Are you talking about Ohio this year? The forms were incorrectly completed. Whose fault was that? The Democrats or the McCain campaign who printed out bad forms?
And, I'm the schmuck because I think it's messed up 90-yr-old nuns can't vote because they don't have a driver's license? That's what provisional ballots are for. Voter ID laws as they're being constructed are a solution in search of a problem. Or rather, a Republican solution to the problem of poor people and minorities casting ballots for Democrats.
"Voter ID laws as they're being constructed are a solution in search of a problem. Or rather, a Republican solution to the problem of poor people and minorities casting ballots for Democrats."
You got that right.
Hmmmm.
"Are you talking about Ohio this year? The forms were incorrectly completed. Whose fault was that? The Democrats or the McCain campaign who printed out bad forms?"
No I'm talking about every state where Democrats are in charge.
What they do is send out the absentee ballots late, the soldiers fill them out but they don't get accepted because they get received late. Why? Because the Democrats send them out late.
And this is in every single election cycle. I.e. every 2 years wherever and whenever there are Democrats in charge.
Now Republicans tried to push a law through that would require an expedited process to allow soldiers to vote quickly by absentee ballots but that was killed by ... Democrats.
"And, I'm the schmuck because I think it's messed up 90-yr-old nuns can't vote because they don't have a driver's license? That's what provisional ballots are for. Voter ID laws as they're being constructed are a solution in search of a problem. Or rather, a Republican solution to the problem of poor people and minorities casting ballots for Democrats."
No you're a schmuck because you can't see that the 90 year old nun could easily get a state issue photo id for nothing.
And ....
You failed to address my point vis a vis *beer* and *voting* legal identity requirements.
Schmuck.
Oh, I see, memomachine. I didn't know I was talking to a fantasist. I mean, "every state where Democrats are in charge" . . . well, you've defeated me with your "evidence." It sounds like a lovely conspiracy theory you've got going on. Be careful as you drive past that grassy knoll.
I didn't address your "buying beer = voting" because it's as ridiculous a comparison as you are at defending voter suppression.
Oh, voter suppression is alive and well. Democrats suppressing the military vote.
Meanwhile, dead people vote over and over...thanks to ACORN - woohoo! It's a wonderful system, isn't it? One which reasonable people might conclude could be cleaned up by merely having voters identify themselves at the polls. But that would be racist. And mean-spirited.
Darcy, can you point to actual instances--now, listen carefully because they're very different--of fraud at the polls, not voter registration fraud? That is votes illegally cast, not voter registration forms inaccurately completed? I won't even try to make you prove that Democrats are behind it.
For extra fun, I'll take some evidence of military vote suppression by Democrats.
Meanwhile, you've got Michigan Republicans threatening to challenge the votes of people who might lose their homes to foreclosure. That is just the tip of a major iceberg.
Michael quoted memomachine quoting CNN: "... Palin had the authority as governor to fire [Monegan], the report by former Anchorage prosecutor Stephen Branchflower states."
The CNN Report should have concluded:
"... the report by former Anchorage prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, states.
[Branchflower had a decades long association with Monegan and the Anchorage Police Department where Monegan served for 30 years and ultimately became Chief. Branchflower's wife was a colleague of Monegan's and praised his elevation to Chief in the local media]."
Obviously, a highly ethical ethics investigation.
LOL, Trevor. I think, a reasonable person would conclude that a party that consistently registers dead people and more residents in counties than actually exist has a purpose in mind beyond making sure that everyone is registered. But, we are not always dealing with reasonable, are we?
There are plenty of news articles and documentation of these practices, as I'm sure you know.
But I concede I have no proof voter fraud. Again, I don't think it is a stretch to assume that is the intent, though. Obviously, you disagree, and we'll leave it at that, OK?
Alpha Liberal, determined to convince others that he is stupid:
This abuse of power is illegal. Not using public office for personal gain is also one of the simplest concepts of ethical and responsible governance to grasp.
These are facts.
Despite the report saying, and Althouse noting it in her post - that no laws were broken.
Alpha Liberal remains willfully ignorant that good executive leaders do not function well with a "peanut gallery" of lawyers and activists 2nd-guessing each move and determined to criminalize any leadership in matters they object to.
How well would have liberal's beloved Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Clinton have functioned if some legislator had slapped an "ethics panel" investigator on each action - an investigator hired and kept in the job by the legislator with a grudge?
Not too well, I guess.
Even the Holiest of All Americans to liberals, Saint Martin Himself, has two large file cabinets of reports on laws or ethics matters "independent" FBI investigators thought he crossed the line on, sealed away from the public by a judge until 2035.
I'm missing how this makes her look bad.
Gov. Palin used the power of her office to attempt to get a personal enemy fired. Not since Nixon have the Republicans served up such a candidate of vindictiveness. Let's look at the chronology:
1. Sarah Palin's sister was involved in a messy divorce with Trooper Wooten.
2. Sarah Palin's family and friends got together to compile a laundry list of Wooten's offenses and examples of bad judgment, to submit to the Alaska State Troopers, to get Trooper Wooten fired.
3. The State Troopers investigated all of the alleged offenses, and sustained only three: The voluntary tasering, the filling of the ex-wife's moose permit, and the drinking a beer in the cruiser.
4. The head of the Alaska State Troopers disciplined Wooten for these three offenses by suspending him for ten days, later reduced to five days.
5. Sarah and her family considered this discipline to be wholly inadequate.
6. Time passes; Sarah is elected Governor.
7. Governor Palin tries to get Trooper Wooten fired, but fails. Gov. Palin tries to reopen the investigation, but has no new evidence against Wooten. Gov. Palin obtains Wooten's personnel and workers' comp files to examine for new evidence -- a violation of state statutes. All of Gov. Palin's attempts to get Wooten fired fail.
8. The argument that Gov. Palin was acting out of reformist zeal fails, because Trooper Wooten is the only Alaska State Trooper whose disciplinary case Gov. Palin has reopened.
9. Gov. Palin asks Commissioner Monegan to fire Wooten. Monegan refuses. Gov. Palin fires Monegan and replaces him with a known sexual harasser, who resigns a couple of weeks later.
f15c - report said there was no cause for worry.
it was already reported it was the CONTINUED calling that was unethical - which was pressure.
im not yelling, just HIGLIGHTING the KEY word .
yelling is only if whole sentence in caps
elhombre - they REMEMBERED their roots - decency and honesty which you dont have anymore
your experience is wrong about 5 days and is IRRELEVANT in this case
trever posted i ncaps and I kenw it was not yelling
give me a yellow online highlgither or STFU
where is the link memo machine?
they meant CULLED through no CALLED through
how do you call through!
morons
Personally, I want someone smarter than me.
I suspect she is.
However, she is uninformed on a lot of national issues, and that's what hurt her. When you hear her discuss the one issue she seems to have immersed herself in, energy, she blows away even The One.
ElHombre wrote: "Michael quoted memomachine quoting CNN"
I guess it was Michael qouting CNN to memomachine.
Michael wrote: "elhomber: My comment related to the fact hat the man was indeed 'fired.'"
I see. But he wasn't "indeed fired," he was asked to accept reassignment to be head of the state's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. He declined
Michael wrote: "Now why do you suppose [Palin] was combining emails and her staff can't sort them out in time to be investigated BEFORE the election?"
I don't "suppose" anything about it. Investigated for what? When I was an elected official, a Democrat District Attorney, I maintained private and government email accounts and used both of them. So what? That proves something?
You are an uninformed partisan gasbag spouting talking points.
It means you can't fool all of the people all of the time, sorry, Ann. And when the day is done, it don't mean squat, other than people do what they have to do to protect their families. Unethical? Maybe. The wrong thing to do? Absolutely not.
And here's Palin responding to a question on CNN...see if you can translate this into understandable English:
Okay:
"Determining which sources of energy go to which markets is a complex matter. I suspect Congress will craft the rules in a way that ensures domestic markets are served by domestic sources."
I'll send you an invoice.
"It means something."
Yes Mrs. Althouse. It just doesn't mean anything about Palin.
"...Moneghan was fired by Governor Sarah Palin..."
Palin and Ayers have something in common
they both say they have justification for breaking the law when they think are doing right.
Translation:
Oil and coal? Of course, it’s a fungible commodity. They don’t label, you know, the individual atoms, where it’s going and where it’s not going. But in the sense of the Congress today, Congress knows that there are very, very hungry domestic markets that need that oil first. So, I believe that what Congress is going to do, is to ban exports to such a degree that it’s not Americans who get stuck holding the bag, Americans without the energy that is produced here, pumped here. It’s got to flow into our domestic markets first.
I don't see that phrase appear anywhere in the quote that you presented as being so impenetrable. Actually, in the quote itself, she speculates about what Congress is NOT going to do with regards to bans.
"I believe that what Congress is going to do, also, is not to allow the export bans to such a degree that it’s Americans that get stuck to holding the bag"
nick says:
Palin and Ayers have something in common
they both say they have justification for breaking the law when they think are doing right.
Ha! I knew we would get to this. The left's moral equivalence. It would be funny if it wasn't so unbelievably scary.
You should be ashamed of yourself for that kind of comparison. You won't be, though.
moral equivalance?
pointing out Palin and Ayers both
think they are right when violating laws?
I did not equate seriousness of any law broken
yelling is only if whole sentence in caps
All righty then
Honest, if you post in caps I assume you're a raving lunatic.
OK.
as an insect
i have a hard enough time
just jumping on keys to type
so damn the caps
i just try to make my stuff instading
as tommy would say
--he s the boy whose computer i use--
even tho tommy just turned 12
he writes a lot better w/o all caps
cause his english teacher gave him
a bad grade for doing so
and it forced tommy to get attention
in other ways like using 5 exclamation points
for which his english teacher
gave him a bad grade too
so poor tommy had to learn to write
w/o his 4th grade rhetoric of
cartoon doodles
all caps
and exclamation points
tommy just started 6th grade
at his snooty Boston private school
which is about a year ahead of public school
so i would expect most people
would have learned all that writing stuff
tommy got by say the 7th or 8th grade
you know i think it would be really cool
if everyone told us the grade they re in
i ll start
i have a ph d from my last life
lotta good that did me
ANWAR is enormous... the area that involves potential drilling is 2000 acres... is it not?
Palin is so freaking squeeky clean that in order to catch her in a "lie" or being "uninformed" it's necessary to pretend that she claimed that ANWAR is only 2000 acres when she very well knows it's a freaking huge area of land confiscated by the federal government from the State of Alaska.
As for trooper-gate...
I'd love for one of you appalled people to list out a time-line. Because near as I can tell, the Wooten issue was before she was governor at all. When she became governor her grudge against Monaghan was so great that she *hired* him,(!) or at the least kept him on when she could have fired him during the regular process of setting up her staff.
Obviously she had some festering grudge against Monaghan. Not.
And then... when he undermined her efforts to reign in the budget, causing problems in that effort, told people different from what the Governors office had said... and then, instead of firing him outright (which would be entirely justified) she offered him a lateral move to a job that he could do less damage in. He didn't want it. He resigned.
And THIS is what has everyone in a lather. Oh. My. Dog.
It doesn't even pass the smell test. She didn't have to have Monaghan working for her for a single day, it was well within her authority to hire someone else. But she kept him. And when she did fire him, it's supposed to be about something that happened *before* he started actually working for her.
It means Althouse will do anything to drive up thread traffic.
Darcy--actually, all you need to do is research the last several cases of voter fraud conviction that have happened over the past few years.
A lot of times the news reports will try to cover it up, but the ones who have gone to jail have all been ACORN employees.
Look in Missouri and Indiana for starters.
"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Micheal Wooten was not the sole reason he was fire by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Comissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to fire and hire executive branch department heads."
It's a crazy world in which we live. Where hanging out with terrorists is a-okay because they're English professors now, but legally firing the chief of police because he won't fire a trainwreck of a cop is a sure sign of evil because the trainwreck of a cop happens to be a relative.
And these people are allowed to vote. Thus dies the republic...
Then who does the report relate to?
It reflects most strongly on the Democratic party hack who promised Obama he'd deliver something on Palin.
The same hack who makes it perfectly clear in his self-refuting report that Palin did nothing wrong--no doubt because he doesn't want to be sued for libel and slander.
This report says nothing both negative and true about Palin at all.
Yours, Tom Perkins, ml, msl, & pfpp
Thanks, Blake! Will do. :)
*off to play euchre and win some money (you betcha!), which I've just recently learned is pretty much only played in the Midwest*
And here's Palin responding to a question on CNN...see if you can translate this into understandable English:
Did HuffPo happen to include the question, or just the answer?
I thought her answer made sense, although it would help me to know what question she was answering. The idea behind it makes sense.
You apparently prefer your politicians to say nothing, but to say it smoothly and articulately. For instance, Barack Obama's plans to deal with the financial crisis, which even his supporters can't figure out.
http://tinyurl.com/3estwr
However, of course, his great economic wisdom is extolled despite the lack of any overt evidence of it.
She's not an energy expert - she's a shill for Big Oil.
Whoah, is today the Talking Point Olympics around here?
Go back and read the history of her political career.
From Kim Elton, chair of the Alaska Legislative Council, who refused to remove Obama supporter Hollis French as oveerseer of the investigation after French made political comments to the media predicting the outcome:
"I believe that these findings may help people come to a conclusion on how they should vote" in the presidential election, Elton said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/10/palin.
investigation/index.html
Elton is also an outspoken supporter of Obama who has made the maximum political contribution to his campaign.
What was the purpose of this non-partisan, unbiased investigation again?
nick wrote: "elhombre - they REMEMBERED their roots - decency and honesty which you dont have anymore
your experience is wrong about 5 days and is IRRELEVANT in this case"
I don't have decency and honesty anymore? and they do? Says you who doesn't know any of us.
And that would be, I guess, because I disagree with you and the guys with conflicts of interest who put together a shoddy and biased report? Very discriminating, Nick.
My experience is wrong about 5 days and is irrelevant ...?
I have to admit, you sure know how to turn a phrase, Nick. LOL
But I'll bow to your wisdom. My experience should give way to your opinion every time. It's only fair.
darcy said: *off to play euchre
A woman after my heart. Ever play Tourette's euchre? What the f**k is trump?
Euchre is best played with four. With more players, there's always dirty clubs.
Weren't you going to boot this guy?
You all realize of course that ANWR is a political designation that could just as easily have been termed, "the area where Carter-era Democrats didn't want any economic development."
People talk about it now in a tautological way: "We can't drill there...it's the Alaskan National Wilderness Refuge!" It's made to sound like you're talking about drilling in Yellowstone National Park, but in fact, it's mostly just undeveloped Alaska, which the powers-that-be convinced themselves in the 1970s must stay that way.
Had the colonists landed there first instead of Plymouth and Jamestown, we might be squawking today about the Massachussets-to-Virginia National Wilderness Refuge. We've let the other 49 states develop their resources to meet human needs -- albeit now with greater restrictions for the most sensitive habitats and national scenic and ecological treasures.
But Alaska is different because, well, it's different. Nobody really can explain why, except for the fact that the feds happened to own all that land gave them an opportunity to snatch it up.
It is perfectly reasonable for the political system to say, now our needs have changed. We need the oil that we previously didn't want, so we shall redesignate some of this massive amount of federally-controlled land for restricted development.
ANWR is not a mystical incantation. It's a political creature and we should approach it with little reverence. Useful distinctions are possible between the truly unique and precious parts of Alaska, and the parts that can be exploited without much harm and to great national and local benefit. To say, "shut up, it's ANWR," isn't particularly intelligent policy, although it remains politically correct in some circles.
Michael said: chicken - translate this:
Palin - "Congress is pretty strict on, um, export bans of oil and gas especially."
Congress is pretty strict on export bans of oil, and gas especially.
Got rid of the Obamaspeak "um" and fixed a comma.
Next?
ANWR is mostly vacant land.
The development of ANWR isn't something that science is concerned with, but religion and emotion.
Look at all the beautiful landscapes and furry little harp seals and polar bears. Imagine them covered with icky oil.
It's emotional, not factual.
But for some reason Democrats won't support drilling for energy in their own country.
I'm not sure why. It's not based on rationality.
By the way, the Democrats in town just kicked down a large sign for the Republican gubernatorial candidate and erected one for the Democrats right over it.
Nice touch there. I suppose if it were the Republicans that did this it would be an example of hate, but since it's the Democrat Party, it's just free speech.
I respect Pickens, but I also respect what he says in context.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा