home

TrooperGate Dogs Gov. Sarah Palin

Yesterday we noted the Washington Post picked up on Troopergate. Tonight, it's McClatchy.

Is Gov. Sarah Palin ready for what's coming her way?

< McCain May Postpone Republican Convention | Will We Ever Learn? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The Washington Post used its adjectives (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:47:22 PM EST
    rather freely.  They called this story a regular soap opera. That doesn't sound like news reporting, rather a nice bit of unsubstantiated half truths.  They must be in their glory.  They no longer have the Clintons to spread their clever little stories about.  Wowee`

    Jeralyn, the story has been out (5.00 / 14) (#4)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:50:57 PM EST
    there. No offense, but since McCain picked her, you along with others have been like rabid dogs. What actually happened to "Biden is a dealbreaker for me" although I realize you found your way to be able to vote for the ticket. You've gone from that to (almost, almost) drinking the kool-aid. Delete if you must, but as someone who's been here a while, I've never seen you like this.

    zfran (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:37:54 PM EST
    I noticed too. It's quite remarkable ... Sad.

    Parent
    Jeralyn's (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM EST
    a FIGHTIN' Dem!!!

    Parent
    and looking for ammo (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:00:08 PM EST
    then we better (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    get out of her way then.  I don't want any buckshot on me.  She's already deleted one of my comments tonight.

    I'm safe from Himicane Gustav.  I don't want to suffer the wrath of Hurricane Jeralyn!!!

    Parent

    What troubles me.... (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Oje on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:32:34 PM EST
    It is difficult to take issue with Jeralyn's or TalkLeft's digging into the history of Governor Palin. However, it is the extra lines like:


    Is Gov. Sarah Palin ready for what's coming her way?

    What makes Jeralyn question whether Palin is ready for the national stage? I believe Republicans made menacing comments like this about Obama when he first spoke at the Democratic Convention in 2004. I assume Palin is an adult, and an informed politician, and that she is ready (unless Jeralyn is speaking to the talking point memos obviously circulating and redundantly posted on nearly every left blog in the past two days).

    In the past two elections, our party has elected Joe Lieberman and John Edwards as the Vice President. Both of these choices turned out to be unmitigated failures. For the ticket. For the party.

    Right now, it seems like wishful thinking (considering how the Obama campaign and the Blogger Boyz were caught with their pants down and the magazine turned to the centerfold) that the McCain campaign does not know what it is doing. I think we need to find a way to engage Palin that is not dismissive, misogynist, or unflattering to Democrats. That has not been the case so far. (Though, I suppose I may eat this post one day...)

    Parent

    Didn't the Trooper taser an 11 year old? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:52:29 PM EST
    If true the Trooper should have fired.

    the issue is ethics (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:58:48 PM EST
    and Palin's involvement, not whether the trooper deserved to be fired. The GOP is parading her as a reformer and ethics champion.

    Parent
    there is more evidence that she is (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by bjorn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    a reformer than evidence that she is unethical.  

    Parent
    Your McClatchey link (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:08:30 PM EST
    has Monegan backtracking on the original claim

    "For the record, no one ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not Todd. Not any of the other staff," Monegan said Friday from Portland. "What they said directly was more along the lines of 'This isn't a person that we would want to be representing our state troopers.' "


    Parent
    Read all the information (none / 0) (#61)
    by bobalaska on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:29:32 PM EST
    The best source is www.andrewhalcro.com

    Halcro is the guy who exposed the real reasons Monegan got fired and Palin's lies about it.

    Monegan isn't backtracking.  He says he had continuous calls/e-mails from governor, her husband, chief of staff and others about the brother in law.  No one said "fire" him;  collectively they were pressuring Monegan to do it, sort of like King henry asking if someone will deal with the meddlesome priest without asking his knights to kill him.

    The governor at first denied that anyone had done so.  Then- like Watergate- a tape showed up, proving that one of her closest aides and best friends called the Troopers and went on and on about Palin's displeasure about the trooper still being employed.

    Palin denied knowing anything about that specific call, denied asking her buddy to make the call, and the legislature- on a unanimous bipartisan basis of a 12 member committee- hired a special investigator to find out the rest of the story.

    The bottom line is that McCain does not know who or what he is really dealing with.  It won't take long for the American people to find out.

    You would be amazed at how many staff (including the one caught on tape who Palin had to suspend) denied that they called or emailed, forgot that they had, or wouldn't comment.  Wait until the special investigator- a well-respected former prosecutor gets them under oath.

    The import of the story is that for the first time Monegan has revealed that he had received-  and has preserved- emails from the governor herself regarding the trooper- after she denied doing that.

    Like Watergate, Palin will find out that the coverup is worse than the crime.

    Parent

    Halcro (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:43:58 PM EST
    Halcro (your source) lost the gubenatorial race against Palin in 2006.

    A former two-term Republican state legislator from West Anchorage, Halcro writes a daily, sometimes several-times-daily, review of Alaska politics online. His near-exclusive focus lately: criticism and analysis of Palin and her administration. It's made him a folk hero to Palin's critics. To the governor's fans, he's in the running for Palin hater No. 1.

    From the Anchorage Daily News.  There's more information at the link.

    Parent

    what do you think of this version? (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:50:00 PM EST
    Although Palin doesn't need a "reason" (none / 0) (#99)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:50:55 PM EST
    to fire Monegan, it does look bad until we know the whole story.

    My guess is that Monegan was protecting other misbehaving Troopers or else he would have fired the taser-using-brother-in-law with no questions asked.

    The GOP can spin this as "corrupt" police unions protecting their own

    Parent

    And what exactly are you (3.00 / 0) (#168)
    by mbuchel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:33:38 PM EST
    basing your guess on?  Anything other than your own hope that Palin is clean so it hurts Obama?

    Parent
    Beyond the apparent ethics issues. (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Daniel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:21:46 PM EST
    Beyond the Troopergate, which is or real relevance, are the positions that Ms Pallin supports: in 2000, she supported and voted for Pat Buchanan; she is against any form of abortion, even if the mother's life is at stake or in cases of rape; she believes in teaching 'Creationism' in the schools; she has zero experience not only in foreign affairs, but has rarely been to most parts of the United States. She is singularly THE least qualified candidate for Vice President in modern times. The list goes on. Obama picked a VP that will tell him to his face when he disagrees with him, but Ms Pallin seems not to disagree with MR McCain at all!

    Parent
    No, she did not (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:31:46 PM EST
    support or endorse  Buchanan ( where did you get that she voted for him anyway?) She supported officially and un-officially Forbes.  

    Parent
    Im not posting the quote again (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:40:25 PM EST
    but she does not believe in teaching Creationism. She believes that it's okay to teach it class alongside evolution if that's what the schoolboard wants and if it comes up in discussion. Her father is a science teacher.

    Check some of the threads yesterday. A number of us posted the actual quote rather than the distorted OMG SHE'S THE BOOGEYMAN! version of the story. If you're going to go after someone on their positions, at least get the real facts. I hate it when the Right does it, I'm not going to let the Left do it too.

    Parent

    Here are (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:44:43 PM EST
    two legitimate reasons why your argument carries no weight. No one was ever charged with abuse and Palin wasn't Governor when the incident took place.

    Parent
    You're still mistaken (none / 0) (#207)
    by CoralGables on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:17:11 AM EST
    Yes he was suspended for five days, and again I will say you are wrong on two counts. There was never a charge of abuse and there has been no continuing bad behavior. All complaints were filed in one day by his father in law three years ago.

    But to add humor, my favorite complaint is that he was hunting with his father in law and shot a moose using his wife's moose hunting permit. Said moose was then eaten by the family including the wife and father in law who then filed the complaint of the moose hunt when his daughter filed for divorce...Only in Alaska could a consumed moose show up in a divorce case. There is no word as of yet if the Governor partook in the moose.

    Parent

    also there's an investigation going on (4.80 / 5) (#22)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:03:46 PM EST
    I seem to recall reading that somewhere around here...about something called a presumption of innocence.

    I take it you think that doesn't apply here, eh? If it does not, why?

    Parent

    one more time and you are out of here (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:17:34 PM EST
    stop misstating what I write Kredwin. I'm not going to babysit the comments. There is no assumption or presumption of guilt. There's an open investigation into her ethical conduct. She will be asked about it on the campaign trail. No one has presumed anything.

    Parent
    I'm not mistating here... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:21:08 PM EST
    I'm asking a question.

    There's honestly something different feeling about this than the Rezko stuff...I don't know what it is, but it feels different.

    I messed up/paraphrased the quote down thread...and I apologized.

    Parent

    My guess is it feels different (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by mbuchel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:35:25 PM EST
    to you because Rezco is bad for Obama while a Troopergate for Palin would be good for him.

    Parent
    why don't you read (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:56:57 PM EST
    my coverage of Rezko? I repeatedly said it reflected poorly on Obama's judgment. And made the distinction between wrong-doing of which there were no allegations against Obama and judgment. Troopergate involves a pending investigation of the candidate's misconduct.

    Parent
    apology accepted (none / 0) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:23:16 PM EST
    maybe it's time (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:26:41 PM EST
    for everyone to step back, go to Nederland, and breathe.

    It's been a roller coaster for the last couple of weeks in the political realm.

    Parent

    J - for old time sakes... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:32:05 PM EST
    SNL is re-running that HILARIOUS episode where Obama appeared in the Holloween skit where everybody thought Hillary was a witch (ha ha ha)

    Parent
    Not that simple. the AK papers say the (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:24:12 PM EST
    father brought the gadget home, and the kid asked him to try it on him because he wanted to see what it was like, so the father turned it on to test and did it. And the papers at least said that the boy agreed later that this was what had happened.

    the family allegations from the Heath side are part of a custody case which is ugly. There is some thought the family wanted him fired because then he could not have custody because he would not have a job and might have to move away. there's no information in the accounts so far as to who has custody and who is fighting and for what.  I have not seen the actual papers on the custody case anywhere on the internet that I can find yet so I at least can't tell and am suspending judgement on the custody part until someone gets them.

    the issue for her is using specifically Gubernatorial power to pressure and subsequently fire another official because he would not do something he thought he should not, to further the highly personal interests of the governor's sister.


    Parent

    I do believe (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:41:38 PM EST
    In a nutshell you have nailed the entire case to perfection.

    And don't look too long, you aren't likely find the family court documents. Contested custody battles lead to flying unsubstantiated accusations and are almost always sealed as protection for all parties (children included).

    Parent

    The McClatchy story is good. What a contrast (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by hairspray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:54:15 PM EST
    to the WaPo story.  See what good reporting is?

    Someone needs to explain to me why (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:54:19 PM EST
    Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers are off-limits, but whatever mud can be scraped up can be flung at Palin.

    I don't get it.

    This isn't about (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    questionable associations, but a pending legislative investigation into alleged misconduct by the candidate. There was no misconduct alleged against Obama re: Rezko as we wrote and documented repeatedly. The U.S. Attorneys Office said so and Rezko's criminal charges were unrelated to him.

    Parent
    This has nothing to do with (5.00 / 10) (#39)
    by coolit on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:16:32 PM EST
    making our country a better place.

    This is ugly, gutter politics.  It is digging up dirt to win no matter what.  This is me slowly leaving the democratic party.  

    We claim to be for the little guy and here you are picking apart this woman on a technicality.

    I am not a republican for a reason.  I think it is a messed up party.  There is a lot of evidence to show me that the democratic party is becoming a messed up party too.  

    Parent

    I know you are a lawyer... (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Jeannie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:16:32 PM EST
    but if you have seriously read about the association with Obama and Rezko - you can say that there are no legal charges, but ethically, what do you have to say? Or do you only look at legal problems? The house deal was really ethically shaky, in my opinion - having a crook buy your lawn. Does someone have to be charged in order for the circustances to be important? Or can someone be 'ethically challenged' without being charged?


    Parent
    Rezko's (none / 0) (#148)
    by JThomas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:21:38 PM EST
    wife made an investment in the adjoing lot. She made $54,000 dollars on that investment when she sold it later. It was a smart investment,clearly.

    Parent
    Oh, good Lord. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Jeannie on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:57:55 PM EST
    It is Obama's lawn. It is his yard. It is not an 'empty lot next door'. The only way into it is through Obama's gate. Who owns it now? Rezko's lawyer? Does Obama still have the use of his lawn? Who cuts the lawn? Do his kids play there?
    Do you know the history of the 'subdivision'? Google is your friend.

    Parent
    There are no legal charges here either (5.00 / 7) (#159)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:29:44 PM EST
    It's an investigation by the opposing legislative party, based on accusations of two fired state employees.

    It's MUCH like the Ken Starr investigation of Whitewater, on a superficial level at least.

    I think what some are objecting to is not raising the issue -- certainly Palin will have to answer questions about it -- but that the effort to find articles to support that there was a violation is outweighing the effort to find evidence that there wasn't, which would more accord with tenor of this site when accusations are made against people TL supports.  This impression is not at all alleviated by the original post of the issue included the incorrect statement that she was under 'federal indictment', a far more serious situation.  (which looks like it's been corrected now)

    Almost everything reported so far has been based on statements of a few of the parties involved, and whole bunch of spin from some blogs who're acting as if Palin's already been convicted of a felony and running as VP from San Quentin.

    If it's going to be brought up repeatedly without new information, I'd love to see a discussion of the legal issues involved, or a discussion of the ethics issues involved (what if the trooper really IS a bad actor who should have been fired?  wouldn't Palin have been held ultimately responsible if he'd caused harm to someone else's kid?).  Even if the accusations are true, this is a more complex situation than if either the director or the trooper had been fired for whistleblowing.  Does Alaska have an ethics code on paper somewhere?  

    The whole thing can be respun as:  Palin fired her Public Safety director for not sufficiently disciplining a state trooper for violations his department investigated and found evidence to support.  Prior to firing him, she pressured him to increase discipline on the same trooper, and he refused.

    I'm not sure that a couple of articles in less than 48 hours since the announcement qualifies as being 'dogged by'.  A couple weeks, a month of the same, unanswered, yes.

    If Palin wasn't part of the story, I think TL's take on a state trooper accused of tasering a kid who wasn't fired would be playing quite differently.  That's what people are reacting to.

    I've been trying to study up on the specifics, but besides the predictable progressive blog haka, mostly unreferences, and a few major papers (which just repeat each other), there's not much on the specifics.

    Parent

    Legislative Dems and Repubs Started Investigation (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:51:15 PM EST
    But Governor Palin also ordered an investigation according to the Washington Post story, welcoming the chance to clear her name, apparently.

    "In July, Palin came under a state ethics investigation and critics have said Palin's claim that she did not know of the political pressure being placed on Monegan was a "little too convenient." One fellow lawmaker, state Sen. Hollis French, a Democrat, told The Wall Street Journal that Palin could face impeachment.

    "After French's comments, Palin ordered the investigation into Monegan's firing and told CNBC last month that lawmakers were unfairly targeting her.

    "It's cool. I want them to ask me the questions. I don't have anything to hide," she said during the interview. "Didn't do anything wrong there."

    Parent

    In fairness... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:35:20 PM EST
    It's somewhat of a partisan investigation (which, also to be fair, Obama would have undergone had the GOP controlled the Senate)

    Parent
    I believe that the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:36:36 PM EST
    controls the Alaska legislature, so it's not partisan.  

    Parent
    The Dems control the Senate through (none / 0) (#90)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:45:25 PM EST
    a weird coalition with a handful of GOP members.

    Parent
    Is Willie Brown now in Alaska? (2.00 / 0) (#125)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:04:39 PM EST
    Apparently ; ) (none / 0) (#183)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:41:50 PM EST
    Both those subjects were brought up (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Faust on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:05:19 PM EST
    repeatedly during the primary. J posted about Rezko ALL THE TIME.

    Parent
    I agree with all above (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Andy08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:35:21 PM EST
    you; this is absurd. I find it hilarious "the media" is "Asking" for her passport. Her passport?? How about seeing Obama's?? And I do not mean just his new Senate one but the one he turn in when he got the US Senate one.  Funny noone ever asked to see Obama's passports. And  Obama is running for POTUS ....

    I am a democrat, always been.  But this election, the media  
    decided to throw all ethical behavior and any attempts to a fair and balance cover out the window.... What a joke. It is shameful.

    Parent

    Somebody tried. Remember Passportgate (none / 0) (#155)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:26:37 PM EST
    a few months ago?

    Parent
    I'm not sure... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by EL seattle on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:56:02 PM EST
    ... exactly what's the most effective way to apply a can of whupass to a can of worms.

    Jeralyn: I don't want to feel sorry for Palin. (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by noalosfanaticos on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:19:47 PM EST
    Jeralyn: you have been the voice of reason during the primaries and that's why I have been coming to this blog EVERY day even though I joined this blog this morning to beg people to chill out.

    Please, see how many posts about Palin you have posted. She was nominated as a VP candidate yesterday. How much do we really know? Do you think all these so-called journalists had enough time to research and confirm the facts on the stories? If she was truly not a national figure, how trustworthy these stories can be? Can they research all the facts in 24 hours? Don't you think we can wait a few more days if not weeks to see who she really is and, more important, how she 'ACTS' as a national political figure? All these attacks on her "inexperience", possible corruptions are premature as all the praises are premature.

    All these attacks (often with one or two sources) made me feel sorry for Palin. I really don't want to feel sorry for Palin because it is probably what Republicans want. They might want us, Hillary supporters, to feel sorry for Palin. I do not want to fall in that trap. Please help.

    Here's how you don't fall into that (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:27:01 PM EST
    trap.

    Don't be spoon-fed information.
    Do your own investigating.
    Do your own research.
    Form an opinion on your findings.

    For me, all I had to know about Palin was her rabid anti-choice views.  Does it for me.  No pass no go no nada.

    I wouldn't ask any blogger to "help me" figure out anything.  Keep your own counsel.  Better that way anyway, so you can blame only yourself or congratulate yourself on your vote.

    THAT simple.

    Parent

    Well... (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by noalosfanaticos on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:41:20 PM EST
    I didn't ask Jeralyn to "help me" figure out anything. I asked Jeralyng to slow down a little bit! The reactions to Palin's nomination on this site is something I have never seen before. That's what I meant. I guess I do not want to be "spoon-fed" by you either about how to be a smart voter.

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#110)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:56:40 PM EST
    you said:

    please help

    Did you NOT?

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#117)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:58:18 PM EST
    you asked for help.  I gave it to you.  You got off light.  I usually charge a LOT for my advice.  Consider yourself lucky.

    Parent
    Like it or not (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by rdandrea on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:34:42 PM EST
    Palin WILL be vetted between now and election day.  Maybe the McCain folks didn't do it.  Maybe the mainstream media won't do it. (Heck, they're still stuck on "five kids.")  But the vetting is definitely going to happen, most likely in the blogosphere.

    I'm glad Jeralyn is posting.  She cites good sources and we can add things up for ourselves.

    This isn't a court of law.  It's the court of public opinion.  Palin wants something from us--our votes.  We get to decide whether to give those votes to her.  There are no rules about how we go about making up our minds.

    Parent

    She is a suprise, perhaps unvetted candidate (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:36:35 PM EST
    who could become President of our country if McCain is elected and unable to serve out his term for any reason. She's a conservative evangelical with no national experience. You bet I'm going to research her. It's my country too.

    My research comes from mainstream media articles found not on Google, but on Lexis/Nexis. If you have better sources, let me know.

    I make no accusations, I present information previously reported in reputable publications. You are free to discuss the import and state your feelings as to why it doesn't matter to you or is unfair to her.

    Keep in mind that no one is allowed to shill for a Republican candidate on this site. If you want to oppose the Democratic ticket, you get four comments a day to do so, without personal attacks or insults. That's more than generous.

    I didn't support Hillary because of her gender and I'm not going to refrain from investigating or opining about a Republican candidate because of her gender.

    Parent

    Wow... again. (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by noalosfanaticos on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:56:27 PM EST
    I appreciate your response. However, I don't need to be lectured about the rule regarding those who shill for a Republican candidate on this site. I express my concerns regarding too many immediate reactions to Palin's nomination. Is it bad enough to be suspected as someone who shills for a Repubican candidate?
    I understand it is your blog. So... I will just shout up and visit your blog once "vetting" Palin became "less" ardent.

    Parent
    what's that song? (none / 0) (#118)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:59:25 PM EST
    "it's getting hot in here....!"

    Parent
    Vetting is One Thing (5.00 / 5) (#188)
    by Jane in CA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:45:47 PM EST
    This obsession with Palin is another thing altogether. "Troopergate" is an overwrought and perjorative term to apply to this situation, IMO.

    Parent
    its called following the LOCAL (none / 0) (#54)
    by TruthMatters on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:25:04 PM EST
    coverage, right now all the local reports and such are what is being quoted. and now national media is going to look into this to see exactly what is going on.

    Parent
    Wouldn't call this a "gate" (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Exeter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:28:25 PM EST
    Even if she did act improperly, I don't see a lot of political hay to be made for a "scandal" involving getting a psycho cop fired because he used to beat your sister and you thought he was unfit to be a police officer.

    Beat her? (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:53:18 PM EST
    could you cite where there is any mention of physical abuse because surprising I haven't seen that anywhere. Indeed there wasn't a single complaint of any kind in his file until the day Palin's sister filed for divorce and all complaints against him were filed by his father in law on that same day. And those complaints were made and handled 18 months prior to Palin taking office.

    It's nothing more, and nothing less, than a family getting emotionally and vindictively involved in a divorce case.

    Parent

    If this is true (none / 0) (#149)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:22:30 PM EST
    I am rethinking my previous post.  I would not want her as a friend.  So, I will modify my previous post, with the proviso "from what I know thus far."

    Parent
    That probably is true (none / 0) (#209)
    by Exeter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:21:48 AM EST
    although it is very common for cop wives to not report abuse. But even at its worst, its not that big of a deal. My point is that  there are bigger fish to fry.

    Parent
    Jeralyn why are you still posting about Palin? (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    Last night this is what you posted.

    Gov. Palin is yesterday's news. Big Tent Democrat may decide to write more about it, and you can continue the disussion on his threads. I've had enough. Time to change the conversation to other things.

    Part of what the GOP wanted to get (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    out of the Palin nomination was just buzz in the press to push Obama off the front page.  They are getting it, and the fact that they dont like all of the press they are getting is, well, too bad.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:41:28 PM EST
    I've thought that this was a very very risky choice.  He only met her once? Really?

    We need to stop dwelling on Palin and start talking about McCain's judgment. He is over 70 and if god forbid something happens to him, this is who will be in charge. People need to really think about that.

    Parent

    Panicked, reckless,cynical (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:06:38 PM EST
    You're talking about leftie blogs, right? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:30:26 PM EST
    Indeed they are.

    Parent
    Exactly n/t (none / 0) (#133)
    by bluegal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:08:43 PM EST
    Hurdy Gurdy Man (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:33:28 PM EST
    He plays his organ and the left jumped on cue attacking her on the most hateful tones.  Hypocrisy, thine name is "liberal progressive".

    Parent
    I think you're underestimating the GOP (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:53:48 PM EST
    again.

    I have no trouble believing the Republicans would still pick her for VP even if the trooper accusations were proven, and they DID constitute an ethics violation.

    What I seriously doubt, though, is that they'd pick her if they didn't think they could absolutely spin this story in her and McCain's favor.  So the victory dance is a bit early, imo.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:57:39 PM EST
    I seriously doubt this was an issue the McCain team knew nothing about and was unprepared for. I also doubt that a few liberal bloggers are going to use the internet to scoop a VP vetting team.

    Parent
    Palin is just (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:37:25 PM EST
    too juicy I think.  Man did McCain get the bang for his buck with this anti Choice pick.

    Parent
    this is not about gender or sexism (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:44:16 PM EST
    this is about her record in government. Dont' change the topic please.

    I just read (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:44:38 PM EST
    that she also found every one of the people she let go when she begame gov due to the wasteful spending new jobs.

    Troopergate sounds so familiar. (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Sweet Sue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:44:57 PM EST
    Troopergate!! I'd think any real Democrat would be ashamed to write that word.
    What's next-Sarah Polin shot Vince Foster?

    New York Has Our Very Own 'Troopergate' (none / 0) (#102)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51:18 PM EST
    Still on the front burner.

    This seems, according to wikipedia, to be a generic term for any scandal involving state troopers.

    They cite 3.

    Troopergates 3

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by janarchy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:46:59 PM EST
    (as it's been discussed here over and over)

    1. Kay Bailey Hutchinson took  herself out of the running last February. She is looking to run for Governor of Tx.

    2. Christie Todd Whitman is pro-choice and therefore is not wanted by someone looking to pick up the conservative vote. Also, she has been outspoken about the problems in the Republican party and therefore is not in anyones good graces. She also has a lot of baggage regarding her tenure with the EPA regarding what happened after 9-11 and they don't want that coming into the news again.

    3. No idea but I think she may want to keep her seat in the Senate.


    Is the female bench really this shallow in (none / 0) (#178)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM EST
    the Republican party?

    Parent
    Any reformer makes enemies (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by miriam on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:48:25 PM EST
    and there surely are a few in Alaska who want revenge.  This whole trooper story was prodded by a political rival, Andrew Halco, which immediately makes it suspect.  How do we know the people she fired weren't exactly the kind of crooked pols we've seen surrounding Ted Stevens.  And the kind of thugs we all wanted the Democrats in congress to go after in the Bush administration.  Palin may not be as spineless as Pelosi and Reid.  Until this investigation is complete, with all the facts in, I think it would be wise to forego speculation.  

    Museum Staff Quit En Masse in Protest (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:50:10 PM EST
    Looks like her history of firings is going to be a big deal, I'll be doing a new post:

    MUSEUM STAFF QUITS IN ANGER Anchorage Daily News (Alaska) August 6, 1997,

       Opal Toomey, Esther West and Ann Meyers don't seem like politically active types. There are no bumper stickers on their cars, no pins on their lapels.

        But the three gray-haired matrons of Wasilla's city museum decided to take a stand last week. Faced with a $ 32,000 budget cut and the prospect of choosing who would lose her job, the three 15-year-plus employees decided instead to quit en masse. They sent a letter to the mayor and City Council announcing they plan to retire at the end of the month, leaving the museum without a staff. They also sent a message: They'd rather quit than continue working for a city that doesn't want to preserve its history.

    There's a lot more to the article, too much to quote verbatim.

    Well we'll have to see which story gets traction (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:58:02 PM EST
    but here again I'm not sure this will take.  Mass resignations because of budget cuts -- I know folks in government at the local level and most budgets are consumed by education ("the children") so that even finding money for basics like roads suffer.  I would imagine without seeing the budget that on the list of priorities a museum might not rank hi.  That said I think we all need more Art.

    Parent
    People quitting (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:02:05 PM EST
    because of budget cuts suddenly rates a post on it's own and means she fired them?

    Parent
    That article says the women QUIT (5.00 / 7) (#127)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:06:05 PM EST
    not that they were fired.  That a budget cut would mean one of the three would lose her job.

    With all due respect, Jeralyn, is this personal?  Because it's starting to look that way, and I have to say, it isn't pretty, and it's getting a little Drudge-like.

    Your head's going to explode when the anti-Biden mud starts flying, and you aren't going to have any room to complain about it.

    Parent

    I'm not sure that (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:21:35 PM EST
    re-enforcing the memo that she has had to make hard decisions while actually running a government, no matter how small, is the way to discredit her. All this is doing is showing that she has experience actually making the decisions and doing the work that Obama is only talking about thus far.

    Parent
    And is willing to make tough choices. (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:57:22 PM EST
    Towns all over Mass. are making tough choices right now, and public services are being cut.

    When it comes down to staffing the Museum, or plowing the roads in winter (not an insignificant concern in Alaska, I'll bet), which do you think people will favor?

    Parent

    Effective tactic. It was talked (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:58 PM EST
    about in my state when the legislature slashed the budget of the state historical museum.  I was on the board.  Just closing it down.  And there were legislators on the board who were all for it, since it was being pulled by the other party.  Of course, the legislators from that other party couldn't back it.

    But it came darn close to happening here, too.  That's when having legislators on the board helps, as they finally could make clear that we meant it.

    So since there's not a link here, did the Alaks museum staff actually quit, or did their threat loosen up some funding for the museum, as happened here?

    There always is more to the story.  Like how it turns out.:-)

    Parent

    x (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by pukemoana on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:50:41 PM EST
    Also -- I thought this was a largely left site -- why so many defending an embarrassing -- I mean EMBARRASSING -- pick?

    People are defending the integrity of the Left's response--they don't want to see the Left stoop to the tactics of the Republicans.  Some are also feminists--if the attack on a woman is simply because she's a woman, I/we will defend her regardless of whether or not I/we agree with her political views (and I don't).

     

    In other words, why pass the EXPERIENCED women for the hot one?

    Cut out the "hot" and some people have the same question regarding the Democratic primaries


    i'll take the bait (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51:07 PM EST
    The reason why you have so many here defending Impaled is because there are still some left-over bruising from the HRC/Obama primary.  The sexism seems to be creeping back and that is not going to happen again.  I can respect that part of it.  Any "ism" is bad.  

    As for Kay Bay, like I said before, she is going to challenge Rick Perry for guv here in TX.  Should be interesting.  Dole sucked at getting candidates to run for office so she's probably in a safe place there in ruby-red-ain't-no-way-Obama's-gonna-win-it-North-Carolina.

    I don't know anything about the other lady, so google her.

    11! incidents of misconduct (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:55:10 PM EST
    on the ex-brother-in-law trooper.  I think the fired commissioner needs to explain whether it takes an even dozen confirmed incidents of misconduct to lose a trooper job in Alaska.

    the trooper's conduct (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:13:27 PM EST
    is not the issue. It's whether she abused the process. We're not trying the brother-in-law on criminal charges so don't bother posting them.

    Assume if you want that the trooper deserved to be fired for misconduct relating to his police duties.  The question is whether she acted properly or improperly in regards to terminating his employment.

    Parent

    I'll ignore the rest in that link here (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:34:09 PM EST
    then, too.  It must not be trustworthy, so I'll  look elsewhere for clarification of this information now that it was the trooper she fired?  

    (I had read in the Alaska press that she fired the commissioner, as he was the one to fire the trooper.)  

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#180)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:39:45 PM EST
    the trooper is still working for the state of Alaska. Wonder why she never got him fired since that was supposed to be the point? if so, why not have him fired as soon as the new commish was appointed? Why not take it up with the original commish who investigated.

    This whol thing stinks of swiftboating.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:35:07 PM EST
    Jeralyn to the best of my knowledge Mike Wooten (Palin's ex brother in law) is still to this day an Alaska State Trooper. Only heads that rolled have been two public safety commissioners that have come and gone and neither was the safety commissioner when the original complaints were filed over three years ago.

    Parent
    The compassion will be on her side (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Saul on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49:36 PM EST
    by the people and they will forgive her and maybe even give kudos to her if the trooper did do the allege misconduct.  She probably reacted first when she should have not but if she came to the rescue to someone then very few will care if she did not follow correct protocol.  She corrected an abuse but maybe not the correct way.  I say they will drop the investigation especially in the lime light she is now.

    Parent
    this is one of two stories that are similar, the (none / 0) (#204)
    by Christy1947 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:03:12 AM EST
    other being a Gubernatorial official who was supposedly canned because he was dating the soon to be ex of a Mr. Palin friend. that one is still swirling in the mist and is not as far as I know part of the legislative investigation. That one is also messy in its own way, because the gov's office was used as the site for pressurng phone calls, and the charge has been made that palin had the AK AG start his own investigation so he could see what the other side had and discovered it had more than she liked. But if there are two such cases, not just one, and one does not involve scandalous custody allegations about kids, then the matter becomes more serious. Both will have to be run down by those who can run down that stuff since the Ak papers are ones I am having trouble finding enough of.

    Parent
    Now we are touting stories (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:13:31 AM EST
    'swirling in the mist'?

    What would we be saying if they were doing this to Obama? What did we say when they did? Why did we say when they did it to Hillary?

    Are we not supposed to be better than this?

    Parent

    Because when this site was (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:02:39 PM EST
    for Clinton, it was made clear that if the same sexism and misogyny was aimed at Michelle Obama, it would not be tolerated.  So some read that as applying to all such smear attacks on all women.

    That might not make sense to someone who refers to a governor and mother of five as "the hot one," I know.

    There might be a more benign explanation (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:07:31 PM EST
    than what they may have been serving at the Convention.  

    If it gets shot down here then it's not going to fly with the ordinary American.  

    Anybody here is a political junkie but unlike some other sites for the most part I think we're still just on the gateway drugs.

    I know it's not good when the blogs smear her. (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:12:03 PM EST
    The more I read about her, the more I like her.  

    The only problem is that:  I'm socially liberal and she's not.

    She's done a lot of good tough things in Alaska.    

    I'll defend her, dammit (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:17:42 PM EST
    I defend even women I don't agree with and would never vote for, because I am a feminist.

    that's how it works n/t (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:21:29 PM EST
    I think the message to the regular folks (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:27:46 PM EST
    on this issue will be: republicans will protect you from the nasty man with or without the rules. democrats won't.

    I'm not saying don't investigate this. Of course do. I don't have a problem with anything this site is doing in that regard. Of course given our history with TPM and similar places that slimed Hillary, I don't think I'd include anything from them. But that's just me, I don't work here, I just blather on endlessly. :-)

    Why is it that (5.00 / 6) (#164)
    by OxyCon on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:31:42 PM EST
    ...as soon as a blogger gets in bed with Obama, they become totally classless?
    I've seen this happen at every single Liberal blog which I used to participate in. Kinda surprised it's beginning to happen here, to be honest.
    I'm outta here. It's been fun. Thnx.

    Who's Defending Wooten? (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:37:43 PM EST
    Are you defending the improper use of official authority and abuse of office?

    Because that's what's being discussed here: the investigation into the allegation that Governor Palin overstepped her authority by insinuating herself in the State Troopers' disciplining of Wooten.

    I have no idea whether Palin did anything improper or not. But that's the issue, and it's the ongoing current investigation that's being discussed.

    Or are you saying that you know her brother in law is guilty of the things he's accused of, so Palin is justified in abusing her authority and there shouldn't even be an investigation, let alone any discussion of it?

    Jeralyn, (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:39:25 PM EST
    When it comes to governors, how does this investigation compare?
    Pretty much from my experience, all executives are under investigation for one thing or another by watchdog groups.  If she is under investigation for one thing, or is it multiple?  
    Other governors?  

    If She got an abuser fired, (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:02:25 AM EST
    Good for her.  Most Americans will view her as tough enough to find a way to get an abuser out of his job.  ANY parent who would taser a child deserves far more than a firing.  

    Um, I have a question for you, (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:04:37 AM EST
    as the sexism arbiter:

    Why not Hillary Clinton?

    Please.

    Here is something (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:49:45 AM EST
    worth investigating (this comment was posted at another blog; the info here seems to check out so far)

    The trooper, Wooten, was never fired. He is still working as an Alaska State Trooper as I type.

    The commissioner, Monagen, was never fired either. Sarah offered him another job, but he didn't like it and so he quit.

    This has all the making of a hit job. The democrat spear heading the investigation, Hollis French, is active in Obama's campaign in Alaska. The investigator, Branchflower, used to work with French in the prosecutor's office. Branchflower's wife used to be a detective who used to work for Monagen when he was top cop for Anchorage. There's a quote of her heaping praise on her old boss.

    You would think they could have found an unbiased investigator for the $100,000 that is being paid to Branchflower.



    The State Police covered-up for the Trooper (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by BigB on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 01:38:55 AM EST
    The head of state police made a finding that the State Trooper engaged in illegal activities (including threatening to kill Palin's father and tasering his step-son) and as a consequence (DRUM ROLLS PLEASE) suspended him for 5 DAYS.

    I cannot imagine an ordinary citizen getting away that easy. It looks like Sarah Palin's family was unhappy with the punishment meted out to this loose cannon of a trooper and wanted the state police to take their allegations seriously.

    If it was my sister I would do the same.

    Jeralyn, as a feminist and an attorney, at least on this issue, you should be on Sarah Palin's side. I am disappointed you seem to be gleeful of these stories. I know the two of you are on the opposite sides ideologically but this seems to be a clear case of a trooper abusing his power.

    The Washington Post story makes it clear that Sarah Palin and her family tried long and hard to get the State Police to take Wooten's actions seriously and didn't succeed.

    It looks like the public safety commissioner who serves at the Governor's pleasure did not like his firing and decided to use these issues to get back at the Governor. He also seemed to be more interested in protecting the tropper's "privacy" than making sure an out-of-control trooper was fired.

    On March 1, 2006, Grimes (state police chief)sustained the allegations, saying, "The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession." Wooten (the trooper who is the ex-brother-in-law) was suspended for five days.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083002366.html?hpid=topnews

    Having read the WP story carefully, I didn't find any wrong doing on Sarah Palin's part. Also, she was the one who asked for the investigation by the legislature.

    McCain's been vetting her since (4.57 / 7) (#1)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    at least May. Her attitude is "Fine, investigate me."

    She sounds ready to me.

    McCain Campaign Not Quite Ready (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM EST
    when they refer to a situation where state staff are pressuring a state police director to deal with an estranged in-law as "a family issue."

    Pretty liberal (you should excuse the term) definition of 'family'.

    Parent

    No. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:02:21 PM EST
    McCain met her once (and briefly) in may.  He hasn't been vetting her since then.  They basically flew her down and did a quick once over a few days ago in the middle of the convention.  There's a news story out there now about the RNC sending a team up to Alaska to check into this better.  Apparently the campaigns vetting didn't even look past the surface of her and her husband.  Nothing on friends, family, acquaintances, colleagues.  It was not thorough at all.  

    Parent
    which makes it sound like (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Lil on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:05:52 PM EST
    they don't really expect to win. Just throwing a Hail Mary.

    Parent
    The Trooper Firing is a Non-Starter (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:06:33 PM EST
    I've been watching Palin for months, and well before this.  Her blogger enthusiasts knew about the ongoing scandal and openly talked about it well before Palin was under this media eye; Palin has dealt with it fine.  And she'll continue to deal with it fine.

    As the poster said up-thread, her response is essentially: "Investigate me."  

    The Netroots/MSM want to make a mountain out of a mole hill because it's "new" and "juicy" to them, but there's nothing there "there."

    Oh, sure, they'll mine it.  But that meme won't make Palin squirm at all, IMO.  

    Parent

    Talking Points Memo has also been (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:09:44 PM EST
    following for months. They don't share your view or the right wing bloggers' view.

    There's an investigation ongoing, no one is prejudging her, just pointing out that this is an open case and the questions are going to be coming her way. It relates to whether she abused her power while in office. Can you think of another vice presidential candidate who was under investigation when nominated?

    Parent

    TPM? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:35:17 PM EST
    Has Josh Marshall been ransomed?

    Parent
    A while back (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Redshoes on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:47:32 PM EST
    but nobody's willing to pay.

    Parent
    lol, I was going to say something funny (none / 0) (#101)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51:14 PM EST
    about him too, like oh, TPM, well then I'm sure it's solid journalism then. snark.

    Parent
    I kinda remember Bush was (none / 0) (#126)
    by ding7777 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:04:59 PM EST
    under investigation (Funeralgate) but the public didn't learn of it until after the election

    Parent
    Look up Palin and Randy Ruedrich (none / 0) (#154)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:24:54 PM EST
    I have completely investigated this story yet, but from what I have read, she hacked his computer to prove corruption?  Now that takes talent!

    (He was fined $112,000 so there is some "there" there.)  

    Parent

    Now that is truly impressive (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:31:39 PM EST
    And someone in her own party no less. I bet she has made plenty of enemies. No wonder they are trying to take her down.

    Parent
    Ack! "haven't" not "have" (none / 0) (#158)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:29:32 PM EST
    I haven't investigated the whole story, it just sounds like a good one.  

    Parent
    There is no news story (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM EST
    about the RNC sending a team. it is a rumor, overheard by a blogger linked to by Firedoglake and picked up by Taylor Marsh as fact. it's not, I went to the original link. NOTHING. the Obama campaign is sending people though, to dig into it.

    And it is a fact that she has been being vetted since May. McCain himself may have only talked to her a couple of times before Thursday but his campaign has been looking into her long before that.

    Sarah Palin herself said on the radio today, and yes I heard the broadcast, that by the time they contacted her the first time they already had tons of information on her from her family, educational background, her friends, her business dealing and her politicla career. She said it had been going on for "months and months".

    Parent

    Rick Davis and other members of the McCain (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cards In 4 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    campaign took a lot of trips to Alaska to vet her.  They didn't send McCain since it would have taken a lot of time away from the campaign.  The trooper story has been out there a long time and it's not something that caught them by surprise.

    Parent
    Help... (2.00 / 0) (#82)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:38:56 PM EST
    " But according to the McCain campaign, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee first met Palin in Washington at a February National Governors Association meeting. He was immediately impressed with the 44-year-old rising GOP star and decided to consider her for the vice presidential slot.

    McCain campaign manager Rick Davis had several conversations with Palin throughout the vetting process, but McCain himself didn't speak with the Alaska governor until Sunday, one day after Barack Obama named Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to his ticket. It was then McCain reached Palin by phone, while she was at the Alaska State Fair, to discuss the possibility of joining the ticket.

    I can't find ANYTHING that states Rick Davis ever flew to Alaska.  Do you have a cite or link?

    And if all they had was "conversations", they have no idea what is coming their way.  

    Did anyone vet her finances?
    Did anyone vet her past actions?
    Did they know that she was previously accused of firing others for lack of loyalty, and was sued for it? (She won the lawsuit)

    It's looking more and more like they didn't.


    Parent

    Oh, please... (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:48:05 PM EST
    are you really going to argue that McCain, what - pulled her name from a hat and just like that - poof! - she was asked to be on the ticket?

    Are you frakking kidding me?

    This is an embarrassing and incredibly stupid thing to even be discussing.

    Parent

    Heck, even Sanchez on CNN has a clue (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by nycstray on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:57:13 PM EST
    "She wasn't for Hillary voters, she was to shore up the Evangelical vote." He said more, but I was in duh mode. There's a decent list of reasons why she was picked.

    And how much money have they (Evangelicals) donated since she was picked? 4-7 mil?

    Like the Republicans don't vet and didn't watch how the Obama campaign operates. And McCain is Stoopid! Yes, that all makes perfect sense, lol!~


    Parent

    Perhaps you have a link... (2.00 / 0) (#121)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:01:07 PM EST
    ... from a reputable news source that shows the extent of the vetting process.

    Or you can go with ABC News:  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/how-palin-came.html

    Or you can just keep believing in what you wish.

    Parent

    Ummmm (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    she had already been vetted just was not at the top of the list. But all the information was there. she had already been thoroughly studied and vetted.

    Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's name was in the mix as an unconventional choice for months, but she had not been considered a front-runner. So, over the next few days, with McCain continuing to believe he needed someone who had more of a maverick streak than his other choices, lawyers reviewed her vetting information. They kept their activities from even some in McCain's most senior inner circle.

    Parent

    Yeah... (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by EddieInCA on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:24:53 PM EST
    What jumps out to me... is

    "in the mix as an unconventional choice"

    "over the next few days"

    "kept their activities from even some in McCain's most senior inner circle"

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. McCain handed Obama the election with this choice.

    When National Review peeps like David Frum, Ramesh Ponnoru, and Mark Krikorian tell you you've screwed up as a Republican, you have.

    Parent

    This is the first whiff I had (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:50:35 PM EST
    that Sarah Palin was in serious contention and being looked at, May 29. From here it was pretty steady, if you watched the right sites close enough.

    Culverhouse Spotted in Juneau

    Parent

    Not true (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:33:51 PM EST
    I saw a transcript tonight in which it was stated that McCain's had a team digging into her and her background since early this year. I'll try to find it.

    Parent
    I heard they had lots of paper work (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by zfran on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:07:09 PM EST
    regarding her and her background.

    Parent
    This vetting fallacy was discussed yesterday (none / 0) (#202)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:02:18 AM EST
    McCain only met her in person once but they've talked extensively over the phone.  His team did vet her.

    I wish people would stop picking one fact out of many and spinning big clouds of toxic cotton candy around it.

    Parent

    Almost True (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:12:10 PM EST
    Her attitude is fine investigate me, but claims executive privilege on any emails to and from anyone in the Palin administration, and also any emails to and from her husband (citing him as an adviser), regarding the safety commissioner or her ex brother in law.

    And that's why it will remain a soap opera story.

    Parent

    Check the email laws (none / 0) (#145)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:20:33 PM EST
    in your state.  We've been through it here.  Even in the most sunny of sunshine states, with model open records laws abounding.  

    But that doesn't mean a fishing expedition for a governor's opponents -- and she's got lots, with the legendary level of corruption in Alaska, or maybe you didn't know that -- to go through all email.  That would include emails to her from other state govs, emails with information about private individuals that ought to be protected, etc.

    So specifics are needed.  From what we went through here, if what she is doing is saying that the search has to be narrowed, not just everything in some wide time frame, you better hope that your gov does the same in your state.  I'm glad our state worked on this -- and it's still tricky.  It's a far different technology, not the same as asking for phone records, for example.

    Parent

    She is as ready as the dem nominee... (none / 0) (#185)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:43:03 PM EST
    But in 2006 she in fact supported the bridge to (2.00 / 0) (#166)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:33:19 PM EST
    nowhere, got the Federal money for it, and didn't give it back, even though the state cancelled its participation. NOW she's against it, after she got the money. And she has a video where she praises her Congressional delegation for being so very successful in bringing (pork barrel) money to Ak.

    And? (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:47:03 PM EST
    It wasn't used on a Bridge to Nowhere.

    That's the point.  It was cutting "wasteful spending."  She -- and Alaskans -- would still want the money.  As if they'd say "No money for us!"

    She's a Governor, not Mother Teresa.

    Parent

    For this and all your other bits of (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Valhalla on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49:54 PM EST
    reporting, couldn't you provide a few links?

    My understanding is that she isn't keeping the bridge money for herself, but for the State of Alaska.

    Parent

    I keep hearing little bits and pieces (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:22:19 PM EST
    about all the people she has fired.  I'm wondering when that's going to be made into a scandal?  

    She fired the security that was supposed to protect her (as governor) because she said she didn't need them.

    I just heard she fired the state chef because she said "I can make sandwiches for my own children."  

    She let the security and chef go (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:29:59 PM EST
    saying what she said in jest, because she felt the money being spent at the taxpayers expense was insane. She said there was no reason for the people of Alaska to pay for a chef or security.

    she also vowed to sell the plane the former Gov had bought on the taxpayer's dime and she did. Instructing her people to take pictures the day she started and put it up on Ebay. It tok three tries but she eventually sold it for a profit and she never used it once.

    Research is your friend.

    Parent

    she also fired the city managers (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:55:20 PM EST
    NEW WASILLA MAYOR ASKS CITY'S MANAGERS TO RESIGN IN LOYALTY TEST Anchorage Daily News (Alaska) October 26, 1996, Saturday,,

    The newly elected mayor of Wasilla has asked all of the city's top managers to resign in order to test their loyalty to her administration.

    Mayor Sarah Palin sent the resignation requests Thursday to Police Chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak and Mary Ellen Emmons, the head of libraries. A fifth director -- John Cooper, who oversaw the city museum -- resigned earlier this month after Palin eliminated his position.



    Parent
    I was talking about what happened (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:57:51 PM EST
    when she became gov. I believe she was cleared of any wrong-doing by a judge of the mayoral stuff.

    I am not big on disgruntled employees having been through it myself as a business owner.

    Parent

    Reporting I can find says a judge said the Wasilla (none / 0) (#162)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:30:45 PM EST
    firings were for political purposes and that was OK. Troopergate is a proceeding before the legislature that could lead to her removal from office, and her deposition is before November. Just as Stevens' trial is. there was also a report that NOW the McC campaign is sending a team to AK to see what this is all about.  What republican campaign vetting  guy let this get by them when they're trying to pitch her to the rest of us as an ethics hero and reformer?

    Parent
    Did Grace really need the snark tag? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:58:15 PM EST
    Really?

    Parent
    Yes, I read all that (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:07:23 PM EST
    To be quite honest with you, she sounds like someone I would like as a friend.  While her experience is certainly wanting, and I do not agree with her positions on just about anything, there is so much about her I greatly admire.  She breaks just about every mold I can think of.  In so many ways, she is perfect for John McCain's running mate.  

    I would hate to see this election come down to whether or not she made calls to encourage anyone to fire her abusive brother-in-law.  From all accounts, he was abusive and should not have been a state trooper.  

    Whether I am prolife or prochoice or believe in small or big government, I like her.  She is authentic; she does not just talk; she walks the walk.    

    Parent

    Here's a Salon article from 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:08:09 PM EST
    that mentions Palin and Alaskan corruption:

    What's wrong with Alaska?

    Since her election as governor last November, Palin has made a public point of cutting down on Alaska's excesses, and challenging the easy habits of its past -- getting the state to put Murkowski's infamous jet up for sale on eBay, canceling pork projects and firing patronage appointees. By early this summer, with the scandals plaguing the rest of the Republican Party, Alaska Democrats had made some headway in the polls.

    (Bolding by me)

    I have to wonder if some of the people complaining the loudest now aren't related to those who were fired?  

    The article is pretty good, by the way, and it talks about Palin before she became VP nominee.  (It was written in August 2007.)

    Parent

    Also, the Salon article says (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:15:54 PM EST
    Palin is Libertarian, not Republican.  ???

    So what is she?  She sounds like a Libertarian with all the spending cuts.  

    Parent

    I am very impressed (1.00 / 2) (#134)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:10:53 PM EST
    by how magnanimous and empathetic the Dems on TalkLeft are toward the GOP ticket.  You certainly dont see that on the RW sites.  Truly admirabe  

    Correction: Some Dem posters (5.00 / 0) (#135)
    by DemForever on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:11:38 PM EST
    As people here have said... (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:20:27 PM EST
    ...it's about fairness, and not wanting to see the Dems turn into swift-boating hypocrites over petty matters that don't have anything to do with issues Americans care about, and which sorely need to be addressed.

    You know why I used to call myself a Dem? Because Democrats stood up for those who were bullied--women, gays, minorities, union workers, those of lower socioeconomic classes--and fought for those without the power to fight for themselves.

    While someone like Palin certainly has the resources to defend herself against the bullying coming from the left, and while I find her political beliefs reprehensible, that still doesn't justify the "means to an end" mentality I see coming from the Dems this year, first throughout the primaries and now with McCain's choice of Palin.

    This political year has depressed me more than any other I can remember in my lifetime, not because of the quality of the candidates, but because of the quality of the discourse.

    Parent

    I'm not part of an echo chamber. (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:30:19 PM EST
    If I wanted that, I'd be on Kos, yukking it up and writing conspiracy theories.

    As a Democrat I think that assaulting/framing Sarah Palin's character is a bad. freaking. move.

    "Her policies are that of McCain.  And these policies are wrong for America."

    Fin.

    Some are defending here here; I'm not.  But let those that are defending her on Talk Left be a small indicator of how this may go over with the general public, much less indies or Republicans alone.

    This PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) needs to stop, before it blows up in the Democrats' faces.  The woman has given one stump speech since she was selected a day ago.


    Parent

    She who runs on an ethics cleanup platform (2.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:49:46 PM EST
    should think about whether to push that while the formal investigation is going on, is the point, and that would be the case if she had a beard and moustache. the hottie stuff and jokes about the beauty contest and the ninny who said "Gender or Bust" (I don't know if he thought that one through) is slurs. We need to think it through a bit to see if we would think it a slur against her if it was said about Joe Schmoe rather than Jane Doe.

    Parent
    When you get done (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by echinopsia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:35:08 PM EST
    castigating other Dems for their non-magnanimous and non-empathetic treatment of a certain Democratic candidate and her 18 million supporters, come back and complain to me for being fair to Sarah Palin.

    I figure that'll take about four years. If they stopped yesterday.

    Parent

    Harriet Miers (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lil on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:54:32 PM EST
    keeps comming to my mind. Even though I didn't want her, I felt bad for her and the blitz job they did on her.

    Here's the simple truth... (none / 0) (#11)
    by Southsider on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    ...I honestly don't think there's any "there" there when it comes to this scandal.  But Jeralyn is right to ask the open-ended question about whether Palin is prepared for the s***storm that is going to be coming her way regardless.  We've all learned by now, I trust, that it's not about impropriety per se - remember the big nothing that was Whitewater? - it's about the APPEARANCE of impropriety.  And I think we're all clear-eyed enough about the media at this point (and the Obama machine) to know that regardless of the truth, this is going to spun and inflated into a big issue if it's at all possible.

    And I'm not even sure that's a terrible thing.  Politics ain't beanball, after all.  If the McCain/Palin team can answer this and parry deftly, then it will redound to their credit with the electorate, and perhaps even the media.  If they can't, then such is life.

    So if its about asking the question about... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:01:57 PM EST
    ...whether or not she is prepared to handle what's coming her way, this post should have very few comments because how the hell do we know? Does anybody know anything about her?

    Parent
    I have a feeling that the woman (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:04:52 PM EST
    who was known as "Sarah Barracuda" when she played basketball isn't afraid of what's coming her way.

    Parent
    In any case we'll find out soon enough.... (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    ...in the meantime I'm outta here for the night before I say something I might regret. ;-)

    Parent
    I bet she is ready for it (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:22:49 PM EST
    far more than the librul blogs and media were for the announcement about her yesterday.  What a debacle of sexism and misogyny -- again.

    Parent
    Lord knows, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lil on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
    I believe the Clintons know better than anyone how sick the media stories can get (Vince Foster, et. al.I lost count of the gates) I wish it wouldn't go like that but I'd rather see the Republicans twisting in the wind for a change, if it is going to happen.

    Parent
    I'd rather not (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:26:16 AM EST
    Actually, I don't care about Republicans twisting in the wind, they can all go jump off a bridge for all I care.

    What I do care about is using the tactics that Democrats claim to have reviled when used against us, against anyone else, whether they're Republicans  or not.  

    I think the Democrats should have reviled them, because they were repulsive.

    They don't become any less repulsive just because it's 'our' side pulling the trigger on the Slime Gun.

    Parent

    Heh, Did You Mean 'SpinEless'? (none / 0) (#21)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:03:35 PM EST
    Although when they are caught being spinless it can amount to the same thing.

    Ummm no (none / 0) (#35)
    by Faust on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:12:32 PM EST
    the OP is clearly about a tidal wave of media interest in her history. There are are probably literally thousands of people doing various ammounts of reasearch including opposition research into her. That's intense for anyone.

    and (none / 0) (#36)
    by Faust on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:13:32 PM EST
    get your quote right. That's not what's written in the OP.

    I deleted the comment you are replying to (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:14:56 PM EST
    for a gross misquoting of what I wrote. If Kredwyn does it again, s/he is banned from the site.

    Parent
    oh...sorry... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    I was paraphrasing and interpreting.

    Parent
    not forever, I hope. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lil on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:24:14 PM EST
    More Firings: (none / 0) (#38)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:15:22 PM EST
    Apparently Palin was almost recalled as mayor several years ago for some similar firings.    

    she was cleared by a Judge in that firing (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    Associated Press: 3/2/2000 (lexis.com)

    Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin maintains she didn't fire Police Chief Irl Stambaugh three years ago because he supported her election opponent John Stein. But even if that was her reason, she was within her rights to dump Stambaugh, a federal judge has ruled.

    The police chief serves at the discretion of the mayor, and can be terminated for nearly any reason, said U.S. District Court Judge James K. Singleton in a ruling Friday that dismissed most of Stambaugh's claims against the city.

    Stambaugh led the Wasilla police force from its founding in 1993 until early 1997. Palin fired him in January 1997, shortly after she took office.

    Stambaugh sued, accusing her of contract violation, wrongful termination and gender discrimination. He said his contract forbade his being terminated without cause.

    But Singleton said that under state law, police chiefs serve at the behest of the mayor unless otherwise specified by city ordinance. Stein, the former mayor, had worked out an agreement with Stambaugh forbidding termination without cause, but the city council never voted on it, Singleton ruled.

    Stambaugh now serves as executive director of the Alaska Police Standards Council in Juneau.



    Parent
    What is the traction here? (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Oje on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:11:38 PM EST
    An honest question, though I too am concerned by the behavior of the left blogs once again.

    Her history of firing people may help her with the trooper gate story. She bills herself as a reformer. The broken eggs are to be expected. And, if the police chief serves at the pleasure of the mayor, firing her opponent's appointments upon taking office does not add up to much.

    Parent

    Because... (2.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:30:26 PM EST
    The law said she could fire them for whatever reason she wanted, not because she fired them for an OK reason...  The fact that she may be firing people for personal and/or political reasons isn't a good sign to me.

    Parent
    I wonder if Alaska (none / 0) (#106)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:55:03 PM EST
    is an "at-will" employment state.  If it is, NO employer has to have a reason to fire you a55.  I work in the employment sector and we fire people all the time (performance and attendance issues mainly).

    But if we have an employee that looks like they might be trouble, we ditch 'em.

    Nice and clean doncha know!

    Parent

    She did have the right to fire (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:27:34 PM EST
    the commissioner she fired as gov in this case discussed here.  I looked it up.  It's legal.  (He was appointed, so it's different from the tasering, abusive, ex-brother-in-law trooper with 11! incidents of misconduct on his record.)

    The question of whether the firing of the commission was ethical is different, of course.  It's not clear to me that this is being reported correctly by a lot of blogs.  It's not an investigation into the legality; it's an investigation into the ethics.

    And that raises questions as to the ethics code in Alaska.  If it has one.  I have read a lot on Alaska's corruption that would suggest that its ethics code would be laughable.  Probably authored by Ted Stevens.

    Parent

    Ethics (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:34:44 PM EST
    or the lack thereof will be played out in the court of public opinion, happily brought to you by a media who LOVES to stir the pot.

    Parent
    It's actually quite common for (none / 0) (#212)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:32:08 AM EST
    people in executive positions at all levels to fire the political appointees of their predecessors.

    You don't think Obama will want to keep all of GWB's cabinet in place, do you?  I know a lot of Romney's people were looking for work when Deval Patrick became governor, and I thank heaven for it.

    The way I read that excerpt is that the judge didn't make a finding either way whether the firing was political or badly motivated or not.  So all there is is an accusation by a fired employee.

    Parent

    You should be ashamed for linking to that (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:26:48 PM EST
    What a ridiculous site and story. She fired people it was her preogative to fire, they assumed it was for a different reasons and sued, a judge found she did nothing wrong but some assume it meant something else?!?!

    When did we become the swiftboaters?

    Parent

    Wasn't a big complaint about Bush (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cards In 4 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:35:37 PM EST
    the fact that he was too loyal and wouldn't fire people that deserved it?  SP does it and it's a scandal.

    Parent
    Bush... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Brillo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:51:44 PM EST
    Also fired a number of great people for totally political reasons.  It too was most likely legal.  At least that's what we were told.  Doesn't stop it from being a bad thing to do.

    Parent
    Is it OK to hope (none / 0) (#43)
    by Manuel on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:18:35 PM EST
    that this "scandal" can be resolved expeditiously?  Remember Travelgate?  It had a similar "ethics" framing. How is this worse?  All these scandals are just distractions from the issues.  The Democrats have a winning case on the issues.  Why would you want to divert attention from that?

    sounds like Palin is pretty liberal (none / 0) (#58)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 10:28:06 PM EST
    with her firings of incompetent and cruel and abusive and corrupt people. I won't be surprised if she hasn't over stepped her bounds in some of those either.

    Here's where the media gets to decide who wins. If they decide she's a maverick and of course those people should have been fired, and bending the rules a bit is OK, then they win. If they hound her because she didn't follow the rules correctly, and just hound her day after day on these issues, then they lose.

    It's all up to the media, as usual. And part of what will make the media decide, is how she handles these questions. If she handles them in ways they like, they'll decide to like her. If she's dismissive and abrasive to the media, they'll crush her. The media is a fickle thing.

    Experience? (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:36:35 PM EST
    Well, she actually had the experience of firing someone.  Yep.  That is more than I have ever heard from, the 3 senators running.  In my opinion, small town mayors and governors of not such big in population states, have to do the nuts and bolts of running government.  The three men involved, never had to put a budget, negotiate with a union, deal with outraged citizens etc. etc.

    Parent
    To quote Jeralyn above t (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:37:06 PM EST
    at least to me, but I imagine it applies to you, too:

    the trooper's conduct is not the issue. It's whether she abused the process. We're not trying the brother-in-law on criminal charges so don't bother posting them.

    Assume if you want that the trooper deserved to be fired for misconduct relating to his police duties.  The question is whether she acted properly or improperly in regards to terminating his employment.



    Well then, let's talk about THAT (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:19:50 AM EST
    The McLatchy article Jeralyn links to states that the trooper was investigated and 4 violations found, for which he was disciplined.

    Wooten served, as I understand it, 'at her pleasure' (sorry, that sounds icky, but it's the phrase that's used).

    That means she can fire him for no reason at all, if she wants, even if it's just that he looked at her funny one day (compare: Obama couldn't pick Clinton as VP because they weren't 'compatible').  Or for political reasons.  Or because he likes Captain and Tennille and she doesn't.  Whatever.

    At least, that's the best I can find on the situation.  If anyone has a link to a reputable source showing the DPS was not essentially an 'at will' political employee, please post it.

    IF he did what's been alleged, and she pressured her Director of Public Safety to fire him instead of just suspending him, is that an ethics violation?

    If he did what's been alleged, but she pressured her DPS to fire him only because her sister was in a custody dispute with him, is that an ethics violation?

    What if it was both?  What if he's really a guy who should have been fired (according to the rules and procedures of the DPS), but she only knew about his particular bad acts because of the connection to her as her brother-in-law?

    What if he should have been fired, but other troopers haven't been fired for similar acts, only because Palin had no knowledge of their acts or simply just didn't pressure DPS on their cases?

    There doesn't seem to be any legal violations involved here, it's all about an ethics violation.  So let's discuss what is or is not an ethics violation.  

    Parent

    It will be harder than you think. there is an (none / 0) (#176)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:37:37 PM EST
    audio tape of a radio show where she was the callin guest where she is laughing when another female politician from her area is referred to as a B** and a cancer on the area she represents. Nothing where palin herself uses it, but she also said nothing when McCain did. You can't complain of its being used on her when she approves using it on others.

    Did you listen to the audio? (none / 0) (#184)
    by americanincanada on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:42:46 PM EST
    It's embarassing but it's also not like she didn't sound embarassed and she said nothing. This is the kind of stuff that will lose the election for us. the audio is not as bad as people claim.

    Parent
    What's the payoff to her?? (none / 0) (#195)
    by Yotin on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:51:57 PM EST
    If true, did she gain materially? There are so many ethical issues out there that impoverish the public, do we need to sweat this one.

    What I'll be interested in is if she even has something like a Rezko deal in her past.

    Via Memeorandum (none / 0) (#214)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 12:55:17 AM EST
    Palin's Trooper'Gate: Beating MSM distortions to the truth

    I guess there are several sides to this story. We'll see.

    Governor Palin's Ethics Problem (none / 0) (#217)
    by john horse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    I agree with Jeralyn that this is an ethics problem.  There should have been no communication at all from Governor Palin's office involving her ex-brother in law.  If there was then this was not only inappropriate but may have crossed the line for an apparent conflict of interest.  You don't use your political power to settle family scores.

    Palin attacks show hidden Mysoginy (none / 0) (#218)
    by Cougar for Clinton on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    I'm seeing this rampant mysoginy everywhere now.