[Krusty]

Drumroll please ......
Story from UPI

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Oct. 10 (UPI) -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin violated state ethics law by abusing her power, an official investigation has concluded.
The conclusion was contained in a report released Friday by the bipartisan Legislative Council following a daylong meeting that ended with a 12-0 vote to release the report, the Anchorage (Alaska) Daily News reported.

OK, now we all have to play the switcheroo game and Republicans need to start minimizing this and Democrats need to get all bent out of shape like its the biggest deal on earth. So, is it worse to "pal around" with a terrorist but not break the law yourself or to break actual laws yourself though of Mayberry-esque seriousness ?

[Dork.]

I think that photo of Palin in the UPI story hasn't been retouched! The nerve of that liberal media....

[RAILhead]

You forgot part of that sentence: "it found that Palin also had legitimate reasons for dismissing Monegan, MSNBC reported."

[RAILhead]

Oh, and one should also point out that the standard upon which this "decision" was made was that public officials hold office "as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

It's not like she took a bunch of money and hid it in her freezer...

[Ghoser777]

I never understood what was so huge about this "scandal"... and I don't know why Palin didn't come out right away and explain what happened. If she tells her story and talks to the investigating committee earlier on, this issue dies quickly. Instead, it's a political football 25 days from the election.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

You forgot part of that sentence: "it found that Palin also had legitimate reasons for dismissing Monegan, MSNBC reported."

And Obama had legitimate reasons for serving on an education board that Ayers served on as well.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Oh, and one should also point out that the standard upon which this "decision" was made was that public officials hold office "as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

It's not like she took a bunch of money and hid it in her freezer...

I said in my post, it was a "Mayberry-esque" crime. But the severity of the crime isn't the point. It's that she had a direct role in this crime vs. Obama having NO ROLE in Ayers crimes from the 60s. What part of Ayers' crimes was Obama a party to ?

As I said in my post, this begs a philosophical question. Who is more "guilty" ? a person who associates with a serious criminal or a person who is a minor criminal themselves ? What does it mean if I take a job and the person I work with used to be a drug dealer ? Am I more guilty for working with the ex-con than if I am myself a shoplifter ?

[GSixZero]

This is essentially the US Attorney firings take 2.

The Bush administration had the right to fire the US Attorneys for any or no reason, unfortunately he chose to go about it illegally.

Palin had the right to fire this guy, but chose to do it illegally.

My boss has the right to fire me for any reason or no reason, but that doesn't make it legal for him to fire me if I'm black.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

I never understood what was so huge about this "scandal"... and I don't know why Palin didn't come out right away and explain what happened. If she tells her story and talks to the investigating committee earlier on, this issue dies quickly. Instead, it's a political football 25 days from the election.

If she came out right away and explained what happened, she would have to admit to at least some improper behavior in the matter. In other words, small crime or not, she thought that she could get away with if everyone just kept mum. And, everyone did keep mum ... until the government employees who refused to talk initially were eventually forced to.

[zerostar]

ANY politician will wait and see if a scandal (no matter small or not) will blow over before they come out and address them, you see it happening now and with any previous "scandal", if it can blow over and be ignored all the better for them. If the assertions are false (as I initially thought this was) then I tend to agree... Ignore it if it is false and let investigators/press/etc. realize it is false so we can move on...

[Chongo]

This probe was lead by Sen. French (D), whose wife worked for Monegan, and is an Obama supporter, as were the other members of the "probe". He promised an "October Surprise" The "probe" found she acted within in her authority to reassign Monegan, he chose to not accept reassignment. As far as the AK state trooper in question, Wooten is still a AK state trooper. Trooper Wooten admitted to ALL the charges against him, including: drinking on the job, tazering his stepson, and for you animal rights folks, taking a moose out of season. He was suspended, not fired. In most states, drinking while in uniform would be grounds for termination alone. Tod Palin was singled out as the one asking the questions as to why he was not fired, and was told to stop by the Governor.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Tod Palin was singled out as the one asking the questions as to why he was not fired, and was told to stop by the Governor.

Incorrect. Where did you get that info ?? The investigation concluded that Palin knew about it but ignored it .... did not tell Todd Palin to stop and allowed him use of state government resources to do it. Also, the investigation began on July 28th, before anyone knew Palin was going to be VP candidate (in fact, right around the time Palin was famously quoted asking what exactly a VP does). Finally, the Legislative Council was indeed headed by a Democrat but consists of 14 members, 6 from state House, 6 from state Senate, a Chair and and Vice-Chair. 10 of the 14 members are Republicans.

My favorite part of the report is where they recount Monegan's successor (Chuck Kopp) asking a Palin staffer why Monegan had been fired, to which she responded "Todd is really upset with Monegan."

Again, the point of my post isn't that this is some sort of high crime. It's that it hilariously starts conservatives equivocating and minimizing the issue exactly as Dems have done with Obama's connection to Ayers. If you are going to give Palin the benefit of the doubt that she can be married to a guy, allow him to use government resources to pressure a state official and then turn a blind eye to it, why not give Obama the benefit of the doubt that maybe he really isn't responsible for what Ayers has said or done in the past (or present). Obama's relationship to Ayers is much further removed than Palin to her husband, he had no part in Ayers actions in the 60s, and he served on the boards of a couple of foundations with Ayers which several Republicans served on as well. Yet he is somehow guilty by association with Ayers but Palin is not guilty by her much closer association with her husband ?

[RAILhead]

Uhh....you brought up Obama, kiddo.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Uhh....you brought up Obama, kiddo.

Yes. This Palin issue has direct relevance to it from a philosophical standpoint (obviously, its a minor issue in and of itself).

How "responsible" is a person for the actions of those they associate with ? Not at all ? Some ? Depends on how close they are to the person ? Depends on how bad the crime is ? I never got why people got their panties in such a twist over the fact that Obama knew Ayers. Unless he did what Ayers did, or condoned it rather than denounced it, I'm not sure why it its such a huge issue.

[ebuddy]

I agree with Krusty on this one, but I don't necessarily buy off on the comparison.

If I run a red light, I've broken a law and will be found in violation; cited for having broken the law. This is the degree of the "crime" here right? Had Palin simply come forth with information related to this, she would've averted the "political football" just days before the election as you say. I totally agree. Some lessons could be learned from this. Transparency people. Transparency. If there's one thing people are sick of, it is these surprise findings of impropriety. Just stop it. All of you! Shame on Palin.

That said, the accusations against Obama while ambiguous, are much more profound, the implications more curious. His partnership with Ayers reconciles with his 20 years' church attendance, ACORN affiliation, attendance at multiple socialist conferences, and in fact his voting record. All of these show signs of ideology that the American public has opposed time and again. This ideology, combined with an extremely charismatic figure and a dominantly Democratic Hill add up to *potentially* unfettered thrust of this ideology.

It's not as much; "which one bothers you" because easily IMO they both do. I'm tired of lacking transparency. However, when considering "which one has more severe implications" the answer is more apparent to me. Granted, I oppose Obama's ideology and don't claim to be a neutral third party in this decision. Just my .02.

[PaperNotes]

Palin's family feud aside, do you think she has the potential to have oral or cigar sex in the Oval Office, or skew scientific data to scare the public and businesses into spending lots of hard earned money and then profiting from that with a bogus documentary and carbon trading company?

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This probe was lead by Sen. French (D), whose wife worked for Monegan, and is an Obama supporter, as were the other members of the "probe". He promised an "October Surprise" The "probe" found she acted within in her authority to reassign Monegan, he chose to not accept reassignment. As far as the AK state trooper in question, Wooten is still a AK state trooper. Trooper Wooten admitted to ALL the charges against him, including: drinking on the job, tazering his stepson, and for you animal rights folks, taking a moose out of season. He was suspended, not fired. In most states, drinking while in uniform would be grounds for termination alone. Tod Palin was singled out as the one asking the questions as to why he was not fired, and was told to stop by the Governor.

There seems to be a line of thought amongst some that the Republicans are they this noble organization out to save this country from the nefarious and organized democrats, who are united together to trick the populous into adopting their hidden socialist agenda thus trapping the country forever under their rule.

Republicans do something, or something happens in the world that reenforces the republican aganda... GOOD.
Democrats do ANYTHING. Or the media does ANYTHING, or some group or person says something that has a left-leaning viewpoint and it's... PARTISAN POLITICS AS USUAL. NOTHING BUT HIDDEN LIBERAL AGENDA, BLAH BLAH BLAH

Yes? No?

[ort888]

As for this "Troopergate" scandel... who cares. Yes, it's a dick move by the Palins, but whatever. I already know who I'm voting for, so this changes nothing. If I was voting for McCain, this wouldn't be a big deal to me.

All 4 of these candidates have dirty hands. The reality of the world we live in is that anyone who shows the desire and ambition to be President of the United States, and anybody who has chosen a career in politics in America is going to have some problems. You can't play this game without dealing with shadiness. You can't be the kind of person willing to run for the office of president without having the type of personality that is prone to getting ahead at all costs. You can't get to that point without dealing with 100 shady political insiders, lobbyists, etc... This is true for both parties and all 4 candidates.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That said, the accusations against Obama while ambiguous, are much more profound, the implications more curious. His partnership with Ayers reconciles with his 20 years' church attendance, ACORN affiliation, attendance at multiple socialist conferences, and in fact his voting record. All of these show signs of ideology that the American public has opposed time and again. This ideology, combined with an extremely charismatic figure and a dominantly Democratic Hill add up to *potentially* unfettered thrust of this ideology. .

The Ayers-Barack connection issue has nothing to with what he he did, but why he did it and the ideology behind it. Barack's sought, and received the endorsement of the "New Party' in 1996 http://web.archive.org/web/200103060...p9610.html#top

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Palin's family feud aside, do you think she has the potential to have oral or cigar sex in the Oval Office,

I don't know, but I'm strangely aroused

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

or skew scientific data to scare the public and businesses into spending lots of hard earned money and then profiting from that with a bogus documentary and carbon trading company?

Not sure. But I do think the sort of unofficial, "family feud" cronyism that she's engaged in makes me concerned that she would be inclined to continue some of the worst practices of the Bush administration (e.g. torturing first, based on a bunch of people getting in a room deciding to do it even though it was unlawful at the time. Bypassing legal limits on wiretapping and eavesdropping -- even when they were given much greater latitude to do it, they STILL went further than the law allowed. "Signing statements" where the president basically just ignores congressional votes and indicates that he will carry on as he best sees fit).
So, I guess I am concerned that she is going to be like Bush II, Reagan (with Iran-Contra), and Nixon ... basically operating under the assumption that they've been voted "Kings" of the country and just make decisions on what they feel is the right way to go. That her public office and her husband were engaged in a family feud using taxpayer time and resources is a pretty stark indication that she might treat the vice presidency like the mayorship of a small town .... oh wait

[Chongo]

Bottom line is Mike Wooten is still an AK State trooper. The new director did not fire him either.

[Wiskedjak]

The behavior outlined by this probe certainly seems to suggest that Palin doesn't have much respect for the limits placed on elected representatives.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This probe was lead by Sen. French (D), whose wife worked for Monegan, and is an Obama supporter, as were the other members of the "probe". He promised an "October Surprise" The "probe" found she acted within in her authority to reassign Monegan, he chose to not accept reassignment. As far as the AK state trooper in question, Wooten is still a AK state trooper. Trooper Wooten admitted to ALL the charges against him, including: drinking on the job, tazering his stepson, and for you animal rights folks, taking a moose out of season. He was suspended, not fired. In most states, drinking while in uniform would be grounds for termination alone. Tod Palin was singled out as the one asking the questions as to why he was not fired, and was told to stop by the Governor.

In other areas of law such as employment discrimination, having mixed-motives (legal and illegal reasons) for taking a negative employment action against someone cuts off certain damages, but it doesn't affect liability for the illegal reason. So if someone fired an employee for drinking on the job *and* for any type of prohibited discrimination, then that person is still liable for firing an employee for an illegal reason.

I'm not saying that type of law applies here, but the logic applies. So, Palin was within her authority in firing Monegan. She had legitimate reasons for doing so. She *also* had illegitimate reasons:

In the report, the independent investigator, Stephen E. Branchflower, a former prosecutor in Anchorage, said that Ms. Palin wrongfully allowed her husband, Todd, to use state resources as part of the effort to have Trooper Wooten dismissed.

The report says she knowingly “permitted Todd Palin to use the governor’s office and the resources of the governor’s office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired.”

Further, it says, she “knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda.”

Those illegitimate reasons are what get her into trouble.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Bottom line is Mike Wooten is still an AK State trooper. The new director did not fire him either.

How's that the bottom line ??

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

How's that the bottom line ??

If you aren't successful in your unethical act, it's all O.K.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

The behavior outlined by this probe certainly seems to suggest that Palin doesn't have much respect for the limits placed on elected representatives.

Whew -- thank goodness no one else does either, with the impeachment and all...

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Whew -- thank goodness no one else does either, with the impeachment and all...

Pardon my ignorance, but I can't tell if this is a jab against Clinton from the 90s or some sort of statement about the non-seriousness of the Palin issue.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

Not sure. But I do think the sort of unofficial, "family feud" cronyism that she's engaged in makes me concerned that she would be inclined to continue some of the worst practices of the Bush administration (e.g. torturing first, based on a bunch of people getting in a room deciding to do it even though it was unlawful at the time. Bypassing legal limits on wiretapping and eavesdropping -- even when they were given much greater latitude to do it, they STILL went further than the law allowed.

Ah but a lot of these were put in place during Clinton's administration. Rendition programmes didn't begin under Bush.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by GSixZero 

This is essentially the US Attorney firings take 2.

The Bush administration had the right to fire the US Attorneys for any or no reason, unfortunately he chose to go about it illegally.

Bush should have fired ALL the US attorneys on day one, like Clinton did.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Bush should have fired ALL the US attorneys on day one, like Clinton did.

Yep. Unfortunately, he chose to do it in the the worst possible way.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Ah but a lot of these were put in place during Clinton's administration. Rendition programmes didn't begin under Bush.

I don't doubt it about rendition. The official policy of hostility toward Iraq started under Clinton too (though it was scaled back to things short of full scale war). But, the specific items i listed were indeed initiated under the Bush administration: Torture as discussed by several high level members of the Bush administration (Condi Rice, Ashcroft, et al) and the wiretapping that was beyond the constraints of FISA also started under Bush. Even with the "Patriot Act" in place which loosened up the reins considerably, they STILL went beyond the allowed limits. One of the recent big stories in the news is how the NSA basically recorded conversations between two Americans even when neither of them were suspected of terrorism (e.g. recorded "pillow talk" between US servicemen in Iraq and their wives or GFs back home).

[Powerbook]

This abuse of power is basically irrelevant when it comes to the Bush administration. Palin had to grind a personal axe with some trooper and tried to fire him.
Bush junior had to grind a personal axe and invaded an uninteresting Third world country. ("But he wanted to kill my daddy!"). Talk about serious disadvantages for the U.S. and A.

PB.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

I don't doubt it about rendition.

I wouldn't say it if it wasn't true. Even the ACLU admits that the Rendition programme started under Clinton

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

That's not to say I disagree with every point about it. If a terrorist group was bombing markets near me and I personally lost friends or family, you bet I would support the most fierce interrogations and so might you. But one thing to remember is, that the REAL torture was done when terrorists were handed over to Muslim law enforcers.

We just don't like innocents being arrested.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

And Obama had legitimate reasons for serving on an education board that Ayers served on as well.

What were they? Ayers was in charge of the foundation in question and you do know that it was used to funnel money into radical leftist groups like Reverend Wright's church and ACORN? You do know that Ayer's views on "education reform" are almost as radical as his views on what the appropriate response should be when you disagree strongly with the government (blow them up)? What "legitimate" reason does one have to assist a radical leftist, admitted communist, and unrepentant terrorist with their schemes to indoctrinate children?

I said in my post, it was a "Mayberry-esque" crime. But the severity of the crime isn't the point. It's that she had a direct role in this crime vs. Obama having NO ROLE in Ayers crimes from the 60s. What part of Ayers' crimes was Obama a party to ?

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Should Obama have been helping the man in question with what has been outlined? I think if you explained it to most people, they'd say no.

Should the guy in question have still been employed by the state in law enforcement based on what he was found to have done? I think if you explained to most people, they'd say no.

It would appear that Palin may have used a little bad judgement to do THE RIGHT THING, while Obama KEEPS showing bad judgement to DO THE WRONG THING over and over as part of a pattern. If I've got to judge, I'll fault the latter before I fault the former.