PDA

View Full Version : Alaska panel finds Palin abused power


Yar-El
10-10-2008, 08:43 PM
Article: Alaska panel finds Palin abused power (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27105917/)
Campaign officials tried to pre-empt lawmakers with report clearing Palin

So, how many people think its over for McCain?

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner.

The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.

SW01
10-10-2008, 09:01 PM
McCain's campaign was in bad shape anyway, it seems. This may be the final death knell...

Really, it is bad for anyone's campaign when your running mate commits what may be an impeachable offence, which I am sure abuse of power falls under.

But, the enquiry began before Palin was announced as McCain's running mate, so perhaps it is his own fault for failing to take the possible effect of this finding into consideration.

KinchyB
10-10-2008, 09:12 PM
So, how many people think its over for McCain?

*Raises hand fanatically*

The best part of all this is that the McCain campaign released their own "findings" clearing her yesterday! LOL, they actually knew what was coming!! He was trying to prove he was "mavericky" and shot himself in the foot, you betcha!! :D

Da_man
10-10-2008, 09:16 PM
I say McCain is really screwed if this reaches the Colbert Report, or some other political show. He will be skewered. I've already seen SNL's take on the presidential debate.

El Sitherino
10-10-2008, 09:24 PM
I suppose this would be a great time to post this.

SW01
10-10-2008, 09:29 PM
:rofl:

Seems to sum up the election perfectly!

But, far as I can see, this may be one of the most harmful things to McCain. Choosing Palin was seen by many as a controversial, surprising move - now it seems to have backfired terribly.

EDIT - misunderstood something - sorry!

Corinthian
10-10-2008, 09:30 PM
It wasn't the sole reason, wasn't even the primary reason, it was 'A Contributing Factor'. Beautiful use of the B.S. machine.

Achilles
10-10-2008, 09:30 PM
Ooo, what wonderful timing. This came out on a Friday which means that it's likely to dominate the next 2-3 news cycles. The McCain campaign has the whole weekend to come up with a response, but as the old saw goes, "If you're explaining, then you're losing". This might start to die down just in time for the debate on Wednesday ;)

Hope McCain is able to keep his cool on stage after being called a coward for nearly a week.

Oh, and it will be interesting to see if the Ayers thing is dead now.

EDIT:
@sithy - wonderful!

@SW01 - so much for the lie that she was fully vetted. McCain's credibility is completely shot now if it wasn't before.

Corinthian
10-10-2008, 09:32 PM
That's pretty rich, calling McCain a coward.

KinchyB
10-10-2008, 09:33 PM
It wasn't the sole reason, wasn't even the primary reason, it was 'A Contributing Factor'. Beautiful use of the B.S. machine.

But the fact remains she used poor judgment in her actions. Do we seriously want someone in the Whitehouse who lets something as petty as her sister's divorce influence her actions in a job where she is supposed to be looking out for the best interests of the people?!

You can quote me, this will kill her public perception of Palin and most likely end her political career.

That's pretty rich, calling McCain a coward.

Definition: a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

Let's see if he qualifies...
1) Didn't look at Obama in the first debate...that could be considered timid or he was intimidated...so check...
2) Brings up items in his campaign ads that he personally said was off limits, but won't bring them up in a debate...definitely lacking courage there...check again
3) Admits that if the election focuses on the economy he'll lose so he ramps up the smear campaign...well, personally I'd say that's lacking courage in a difficult situation again... checkity, check, check

So coward...at the moment...accurate description.

Litofsky
10-10-2008, 09:35 PM
Sithy, that is truly epic. As for Palin, I think that's part of the reason McCain will lose: he preaches his experience, but chooses the two-year governor of Alaska? That's not a wise or sound political move, in my opinion.

And who would be expelled from Congress? Palin's a governor, but why would McCain be harmed by his decision (at least in a judicial manner)?

SW01
10-10-2008, 09:40 PM
And who would be expelled from Congress? Palin's a governor, but why would McCain be harmed by his decision (at least in a judicial manner)?

Sorry, I think misunderstood the nature of the Governor's position - fairly stupid of me. I certainly wouldn't suggest that this should affect McCain in that sense.

Never mind the impeachment bit then! :)

El Sitherino
10-10-2008, 09:43 PM
That's pretty rich, calling McCain a coward.

That's what people have been calling him at his own rallies.

Achilles
10-10-2008, 09:51 PM
@Kinchy: prelude to cronyism? We've have enough of that, no?

@SW01: Let's not give up hope on a recall. :) And even if Palin manages to disassociate herself from McCain and somehow survive the fallout, I take comfort in knowing that McCain will end his career with his true colors exposed for all to see.

EDIT:
@topic: I just read that the panel's finding was unanimous, 12-0 in favor.

Litofsky
10-10-2008, 10:24 PM
And even if Palin manages to disassociate herself from McCain and somehow survive the fallout, I take comfort in knowing that McCain will end his career with his true colors exposed for all to see.

Palin's young (by the regular political standard), so she might recover, but with McCain nearing the end of his life (according to the average life expectancy of America, which is about 80), I'm not sure he'll want to or actually will be elected to the Senate again.


@topic: I just read that the panel's finding was unanimous, 12-0 in favor.

:lol:

Sorry, I think misunderstood the nature of the Governor's position - fairly stupid of me. I certainly wouldn't suggest that this should affect McCain in that sense.

Never mind the impeachment bit then! :)

Don't worry about it- I still have little to no understanding of the system the UK uses (most likely because I've never actually looked at it for more than five minutes). :p

Tommycat
10-10-2008, 11:47 PM
Hmmmm it was still a lawful execution of her duties as per the findings in the actual report.

"It was likely a contributing factor to his termination..."

That sounds an awful lot like maybe....

"In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commisioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statuatory authority...."

Of course there does seem to be enough evidence to support the claim that she pushed more than she should have to have her sister's ex fired(read the abuse in question), but that she didn't break any laws to do it.

Corinthian
10-11-2008, 12:13 AM
So basically, she did the right thing, but might have also disliked the man personally.

Good old media spin.

Yar-El
10-11-2008, 12:21 AM
Thank you kindly Darth333. :)

Looks like Trooper Wooten already had complaints filled against him. Compared to other politicians both current and former, Palin's actions only deserve a tap on the wrist. Bill Clinton had sex in the White House, and he was allowed to stay in office. Go figure. George Bush and Barrack Obama both did drugs. McCain had his issue. She just fits in with the crowd. It stinks that we can't hire a moral politician, but everyone seems to be turning cheek on Obama's dirty laundry.

Do we hire someone who may have abused her office, or do we hire someone who has a list of friends who have controversial agendas? Obama and Palin are both guilty of something.

Why would anyone vote for either party this time around? Palin should get off with a tap on the wrist.

Corinthian
10-11-2008, 12:23 AM
She will. After the media blows this as far out of proportion as they possibly can.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 12:27 AM
So basically, she did the right thing, but might have also disliked the man personally.

Good old media spin.
It means she had the ability to fire him. Notice how it says it was a "lawful exercise of her constitutional and statuatory authority." This is merely commentary on what she can do as governor. It's akin to your boss firing you because he doesn't like you; perfectly within his powers to do it, but it doesn't make it ethically right.

She did, however, violate Alaska's state ethics laws and the report makes it clear where.

Yar-El
10-11-2008, 12:29 AM
I wish the media did this much work on Obama's past. I use to like watching NBC news, but I got turned off after Brian Williams was hired. Anyone watching the news can see bias. I guess Obama can't do no wrong.

I kind of feel bad for Palin, but politics is a dirty buisness.

Nedak
10-11-2008, 12:49 AM
Here is my take on this thread.

Yar-El: Palin did something wrong

McCain supporters: Buh buh buhhh.. It's just a conspiracy to...By the media... Even though..

Obama Supporters: She's insane, if McCain dies we are even more screwed them before.

McCain supporters-But but.. but.. The right is always right.. I know Fox News will find dirt on Obama soon. He's black.. and he's a Muslim here to.. destroy.. earth. And he likes to teach little kids about sex..

Yar-El: I make very rational and un-biased statements. Obama needs to be better looked into as well.

*Discussion to be continued*

Tommycat
10-11-2008, 01:06 AM
Here is my take on this thread.

Yar-El: Palin did something wrong

McCain supporters: Buh buh buhhh.. It's just a conspiracy to...By the media... Even though..

Obama Supporters: She's insane, if McCain dies we are even more screwed them before.

McCain supporters-But but.. but.. The right is always right.. I know Fox News will find dirt on Obama soon. He's black.. and he's a Muslim here to.. destroy.. earth. And he likes to teach little kids about sex..

Yar-El: I make very rational and un-biased statements. Obama needs to be better looked into as well.

*Discussion to be continued*

actually, I'm a McCain supporter, but I say that she did wrong(ethically...sorta) but nothing illegal. She pushed for the trooper's dismissal more than she should have. The trooper should have been dismissed(based on the allegations), but she made it far more personal. I also think it's been blown far more out of proportion than it should have. She didn't violate any laws, and in fact they are not proceeding with legal action. Probably because it wouldn't hold up in court.

Nedak
10-11-2008, 01:08 AM
She ABUSED her power. Why the hell would you want ANYBODY in office who abuses their power?

Haven't we learned that lesson already? Bush, Nixon.

Hitler?

EDIT:
I'm not left, I'm not right. But gosh darnit, I'm so sick of people putting their egos and self-esteem into this election. Wouldn't you rather do what's good for the people and the country, then be so self-righteous and arrogant where you HAVE to vote for your own party? Take off the gosh darn glasses and see it for what it really is.

Obama isn't good.
McCain isn't good.

Obama is HOWEVER the lesser of the evils. I don't see any change with McCain, unless you count bombing Iran, or raising your taxes as change. I don't like McCain, I hate Palin. If you want to be patriotic do me a favor. Look up the word patriotic. Do what's right for your country, not your gosh party or your gosh darn ego.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 01:21 AM
I wish the media did this much work on Obama's past.
The panel's investigation was started in July, way before Palin became the vice-presidential nominee. Don't give the media credit for their work.

I use to like watching NBC news, but I got turned off after Brian Williams was hired.
You stopped watching NBC News in 1993? o_O

actually, I'm a McCain supporter, but I say that she did wrong(ethically...sorta) but nothing illegal.
She violated an ethics statute. I dunno what your definition of illegal is, but I think that covers it pretty well.

She pushed for the trooper's dismissal more than she should have.
She used her power as governor to exert pressure on her subordinates to carry out her personal interests.

I also think it's been blown far more out of proportion than it should have.
I wouldn't want someone who uses her authority to further her own personal, unethical agendas a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I think this is perfectly in proportion.

She didn't violate any laws,
She did.

and in fact they are not proceeding with legal action. Probably because it wouldn't hold up in court.
The panel that filed the report was composed of legislators, it's not their place to proceed with disciplinary actions. That is at the discretion of the Alaska State Personnel Board.

Tommycat
10-11-2008, 02:43 AM
She ABUSED her power. Why the hell would you want ANYBODY in office who abuses their power?

Haven't we learned that lesson already? Bush, Nixon.

Hitler?

EDIT:
I'm not left, I'm not right. But gosh darnit, I'm so sick of people putting their egos and self-esteem into this election. Wouldn't you rather do what's good for the people and the country, then be so self-righteous and arrogant where you HAVE to vote for your own party? Take off the gosh darn glasses and see it for what it really is.

Obama isn't good.
McCain isn't good.

Obama is HOWEVER the lesser of the evils. I don't see any change with McCain, unless you count bombing Iran, or raising your taxes as change. I don't like McCain, I hate Palin. If you want to be patriotic do me a favor. Look up the word patriotic. Do what's right for your country, not your gosh party or your gosh darn ego.

Godwin's law... You lose at tha intarwebz..

Also Clinton abused his power as governor of AK and as POTUS. Kennedy abused his power... Nixon actually pulled us out of Vietnam Johnson got us in... Research what happened to Clinton's friends...

Um where the heck did McCain say he would raise taxes... The only one that has made that claim was Obama.

In fact I believe that I am doing what is best for the country. By voting for a republican president while we have a democrat congress I ensure that the president has a congress that won't just follow along with his party line(because that worked SOOOOOO well with Bush and the Republican congress). I would prefer that we have a Republican congress and a Democrat president, as we did guring the Clinton years, but the Republicans are not likely to pick up enough seats(darn near impossible) to control congress.

Up until about 01 I was a registerred Democrat. I voted for Clinton in his second term. in 2k Wasn't too keen on Gore...

Rogue, I meant nothing illegal as to be brought up on charges. In relation it's the equivalent of speeding. Speeding is illegal, but going 10 MPH over isn't gonna get you thrown in jail. Basically it's a differ by degree kind of thing. It is also a stretch to call it abuse. Naturally the state legislators are divided along party lines. And again reading the report itself, I agree that she seemed to be pushing it more than she should have, but it also seems more geared to hit as an "October Suprise".

Corinthian
10-11-2008, 02:45 AM
Han Sala, after that little rant, you say you're 'unbiased'? You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

Tommycat
10-11-2008, 03:01 AM
Han Sala, after that little rant, you say you're 'unbiased'? You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

Admit it though Corinthian, McCain wasn't my first choice either. I liked Romney... I liked Huckabee... I liked Paul... McCain was kinda my fall back guy. I don't really like him so much as dislike Obama's raise taxes mentality. Well ok, not raise taxes per se... Eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts which means basically the taxes will be back to what they were...

Funny thing is that raising the taxes will ultimately cut jobs.. which means less revenue...

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 03:14 AM
Rogue, I meant nothing illegal as to be brought up on charges. In relation it's the equivalent of speeding. Speeding is illegal, but going 10 MPH over isn't gonna get you thrown in jail.
Except Sarah Palin wasn't breaking the speed limit by 10 MPH, she was breaking the trust placed in her by the people as an elected officer of the government. She apparently allowed her husband, who is not part of the government, to use her facilities in order to put pressure on her subordinates to carry out a personal agenda. She used her influence as an elected official to further her own interests, when she swore to only use her powers in service of the state. This is not speeding, this is an abuse of authority.

Basically it's a differ by degree kind of thing. It is also a stretch to call it abuse.
The dictionary defines 'abuse' as "to use wrongly or improperly". Sarah Palin improperly used her authority as governor of Alaska to put pressure on her subordinates to do what she wanted them to do. I do not think it is a stretch to apply this term.

Naturally the state legislators are divided along party lines.
The panel of legislators was bipartisan in nature, but Republicans outnumbered Democrats. Their findings of abuse were unanimous.

And again reading the report itself, I agree that she seemed to be pushing it more than she should have, but it also seems more geared to hit as an "October Suprise".
"Pushing it more than she should have"? Do you want the next Vice President of the United States to 'push more than she should have' on matters that may have far more significance to the entire country than simply the state of Alaska? And again, this investigation was started in July, way before Palin became the VP nominee. Maybe John McCain should have done his homework. Otherwise, he wouldn't be 'surprised.'

Corinthian
10-11-2008, 03:32 AM
We are talking about her firing a man she had a personal connection to who also was a complete scumbag. This is not totally unwarranted. Maybe she went a little harder than normal because she understood the facts of the case better, but from my perspective, the State Trooper got what was coming to him. It's not like we're talking about a guy with a spotless record here.

Tommycat
10-11-2008, 04:13 AM
Rogue, lets see, the guy she wanted gone broke the law. He was a law enforcement official that broke the law. Also Palin stated that there were threats made. That could have been reason enough to pursue him as thoroughly as was done. Wooten should likely have been gone for his threats to persons. Menegan and the AST even sent a picture of Wooten as a promotional picture to the governor's office to be signed... Sounds like Monegan had it out for the governor as well. Removing him from the position was probably a good idea.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 05:46 AM
If it was so clear cut and right that he be fired, then why couldn't she just do it the legal way? Why did she have to abuse the authority trusted to her by the people of Alaska and use it for her personal interests?

I wouldn't want a leader who would go rogue just to get rid of one scumbag and in the process violate some of the very laws she swore to uphold. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Corinthian
10-11-2008, 06:19 AM
I hardly see how she did it illegally. You're overstating the case to a ludicrous degree.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 06:41 AM
Sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code.
(a) The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any
effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.
- Sarah Palin is a public officer, therefore she holds her office as a public trust.
- A public trust is faith placed in a public officer by the people to do her job as best as she can within the bounds of the law.
- Sarah Palin had a personal interest in the firing of Officer Wooten.
- Walt Monegan refused to fire Officer Wooten.
- Sarah Palin had a personal interest in the firing of Walt Monegan, with one of the contributing factors being his refusal to fire Officer Wooten (which she had a personal interest in).
- Sarah Palin used her official position as governor of Alaska to put pressure on her subordinates to carry out her personal interests.
- Using her office to further her personal wishes is a violation of the public trust placed in her by the people of Alaska.

I am merely paraphrasing the findings of the panel and how they interpreted the law laid down in the Ethics Act. Spin it however you want, but she did commit unethical acts.

Jae Onasi
10-11-2008, 06:24 PM
Do you think a guy who tasers his own stepson and drives a patrol car after drinking should stay in the job and not be fired?

Darth Kalverys
10-11-2008, 06:42 PM
Do you think a guy who tasers his own stepson and drives a patrol car after drinking should stay in the job and not be fired?

No. Jae is correct, if he did that, then he did indeed deserve to be fired. I'm still backing McCain and Palin one hundred percent. They are of my political party and their views line up with mine. (Even if they weren't Republicans, but Democrats and their political views were the same as mine, I would back them.)

Samuel Dravis
10-11-2008, 06:58 PM
If you read the second finding in the report, it says

"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor in his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

What it sounds like to me is that Palin saw a problem - the officer was a problem, no doubt about that - but the Commissioner wasn't taking care of it to her satisfaction so she fired him. That was within her authority but it looks like a work-around of Wooten's investigation process, which I take it is not acceptable.

El Sitherino
10-11-2008, 07:40 PM
Do you think a guy who tasers his own stepson and drives a patrol car after drinking should stay in the job and not be fired?

I talked about this briefly, I agree the guy should have been fired and don't see why it had even gotten to the point that it did with her abuse of power. The fact that it reached to long only shows that perhaps anyone involved in Alaska politics is unfit for higher service.

Web Rider
10-11-2008, 07:53 PM
Do you think a guy who tasers his own stepson and drives a patrol car after drinking should stay in the job and not be fired?

I agree as well he deserved to be fired. But these sort of things have specific bureaus to investigating and penalizing him. It is not the Goveneor's position or job to get involved in that at all unless something the guy did involved her.

It's really disappointing how many cops actually get away with illegal activities. It certainly doesn't breed faith in your police force, but it's still not something that the Governor should be pressuring subordinates to deal with in her own view of the matter.

GarfieldJL
10-11-2008, 08:53 PM
McCain's campaign was in bad shape anyway, it seems. This may be the final death knell...

Really, it is bad for anyone's campaign when your running mate commits what may be an impeachable offence, which I am sure abuse of power falls under.

But, the enquiry began before Palin was announced as McCain's running mate, so perhaps it is his own fault for failing to take the possible effect of this finding into consideration.

Uh, that panel is probably going to be in serious trouble because the person heading it up is a member of the Obama Campaign, and even it said that the family issue wasn't the only reason for his employment being terminated. That same man heading up the panel told the Obama campaign that he could, guarentee an October Surprise.

And why don't we look at the guy that Palin allegedly wanted fired, this guy has quite a laundry list:


Tasering his 10 year old step son with a police taser.
Driving a police squad car while in possession of an open container AND being legally intoxicated. -- He was convicted I might add.
Hunting moose out of season.
Physically abusing his wife, whom is Sarah Palin's sister I might add.
He issued death threats towards Governor Palin's dad.


And she allegedly fired the man whom was in charge of hiring and firing State Police because he wasn't investigating this trooper at all or firing the man? Excuse me, can ANY of you that have siblings honestly tell me you wouldn't have taken action. Heck, even if one of the people involved wasn't my sibling and I had a Public Safety Officer refusing to do anything, I'd fire the guy too for not doing his job.

If she only fired him over a budgetary disagreement fine, if she fired him over this incident, I really don't see what the abuse of power was. He was letting an extremely unstable individual remain in a position of power, as a state trooper whom is supposed to protect law-abiding citizens, not someone that law-abiding citizens need protection from.

In short there is an equal possibility, that this could backfire on the Obama campaign once the truth of the issue comes out, as a lot of women come to her support.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 09:23 PM
Uh, that panel is probably going to be in serious trouble because the person heading it up is a member of the Obama Campaign, and even it said that the family issue wasn't the only reason for his employment being terminated. That same man heading up the panel told the Obama campaign that he could, guarentee an October Surprise.
See, this would hold more weight if the investigation wasn't started in July, way before Palin became the VP nominee. To accuse Obama's campaign of starting this is erroneous.

And why don't we look at the guy that Palin allegedly wanted fired, this guy has quite a laundry list:


Tasering his 10 year old step son with a police taser.
Driving a police squad car while in possession of an open container AND being legally intoxicated. -- He was convicted I might add.
Hunting moose out of season.
Physically abusing his wife, whom is Sarah Palin's sister I might add.
He issued death threats towards Governor Palin's dad.

So the fact that he's a dirtbag allows Governor Palin to violate the Ethics Act in order to fire him?

And she allegedly fired the man whom was in charge of hiring and firing State Police because he wasn't investigating this trooper at all or firing the man? Excuse me, can ANY of you that have siblings honestly tell me you wouldn't have taken action.
I would not have taken action that would have violated the Ethics Act.

Heck, even if one of the people involved wasn't my sibling and I had a Public Safety Officer refusing to do anything, I'd fire the guy too for not doing his job.
Then it would be fine. But the fact that it did involve a sibling of Sarah Palin gives her a personal interest in the matter, which is a clear violation of the Ethics Act.

If she only fired him over a budgetary disagreement fine, if she fired him over this incident, I really don't see what the abuse of power was.
She violated the Ethics Act. Please read up, I have described how she did it.

In short there is an equal possibility, that this could backfire on the Obama campaign once the truth of the issue comes out, as a lot of women come to her support.
It could only backfire on the Obama campaign if they were the ones that started the investigation. They did not, a bipartisan panel (a predominantly Republican one at that) did, back in July.

Please stop trying to blame Obama for everything. It's getting a little old.

GarfieldJL
10-11-2008, 09:37 PM
See, this would hold more weight if the investigation wasn't started in July, way before Palin became the VP nominee. To accuse Obama's campaign of starting this is erroneous.


It isn't erroneous at all because the investigator said it publically and was recorded, in theory the entire report could be thrown out.


So the fact that he's a dirtbag allows Governor Palin to violate the Ethics Act in order to fire him?

Uh, the fact he wasn't doing his job gives her the right to fire him, he wasn't even investigating the matter. Again though the report states that it was only a contributing factor why he was fired, not the main reason.


I would not have taken action that would have violated the Ethics Act.


Uh she didn't fire the trooper, she fired the man that was supposed to look in on stuff like this, for not doing his job and at the very least conduct an investigation.


Then it would be fine. But the fact that it did involve a sibling of Sarah Palin gives her a personal interest in the matter, which is a clear violation of the Ethics Act.


Again though, he was refusing to investigate the matter, which was his job just because it happened to be Governor Palin's sister that the trooper was abusing, doesn't mean that trooper gets immunity for his actions.


She violated the Ethics Act. Please read up, I have described how she did it.

Did she though, the one heading the investigation had a political reason to try to come up with something that made her look bad.


It could only backfire on the Obama campaign if they were the ones that started the investigation. They did not, a bipartisan panel (a predominantly Republican one at that) did, back in July.

The head is a Democrat, and quite a few of the Republicans in question hate her for cutting off their oil kickbacks. (a lot of politicians in Alaska were corrupt and they hate her for calling them on it)


Please stop trying to blame Obama for everything. It's getting a little old.

I'm not blaming Obama personally on this one, I'm blaming the member of his campaign that headed up this investigation that should have recused himself due to conflicts of interest.

Samuel Dravis
10-11-2008, 09:41 PM
Uh, that panel is probably going to be in serious trouble because the person heading it up is a member of the Obama Campaign, and even it said that the family issue wasn't the only reason for his employment being terminated. That same man heading up the panel told the Obama campaign that he could, guarantee an October Surprise.I don't know if he said it or not, but if he said he could guarantee an October surprise doesn't mean that he has to engineer the surprise.

jonathan7
10-11-2008, 09:41 PM
Garfield, I'm British and neutral on this, and quite frankly got bored of this along time ago - neither McCain nor Obama would be people I'd pick to be president - but quite frankly you do seem to be very biased against Obama all through your posts, you may wish to consider this... or not. My 2 cents...

GarfieldJL
10-11-2008, 09:49 PM
I don't know if he said it or not, but if he said he could guarantee an October surprise doesn't mean that he has to engineer the surprise.

He still should have recused himself because he was working to try to get Senator Obama elected to be President.

Garfield, I'm British and neutral on this, and quite frankly got bored of this along time ago - neither McCain nor Obama would be people I'd pick to be president - but quite frankly you do seem to be very biased against Obama all through your posts, you may wish to consider this... or not. My 2 cents...

jonathan7, originally I was just going for anybody be President other than Hillary Clinton, then I found out about Obama's associations and the man has the gall to lie about them and now if this were the General Election and Hillary were on the ballot I'd vote for her over Obama.

If in the UK you had a man trying to be PM via his party and this man had a pastor for twenty years whom in a sermon said, "G D England!" or "G D Queen Elizabeth!" wouldn't you be a little concerned?

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 09:50 PM
It isn't erroneous at all because the investigator said it publically and was recorded, in theory the entire report could be thrown out.
Is Senator French part of the Obama campaign? I wasn't aware he was. And why was the investigation started in July, before Palin was even the nominee? Please answer these questions.

Uh, the fact he wasn't doing his job gives her the right to fire him, he wasn't even investigating the matter. Again though the report states that it was only a contributing factor why he was fired, not the main reason.
Contributing factor, meaning it was her personal interest to get him fired, which under the law, is unethical and a violation of trust.

Again though, he was refusing to investigate the matter, which was his job just because it happened to be Governor Palin's sister that the trooper was abusing, doesn't mean that trooper gets immunity for his actions.
No, certainly not immunity. But that doesn't give Palin the right to use her authority as governor to place pressure on her subordinates to get him fired.

Did she though, the one heading the investigation had a political reason to try to come up with something that made her look bad.
What reason? You have not proved Sen. French is part of the Obama campaign. And again, the investigation was started long before Palin became McCain's running mate. Please explain your statement in this context.

The head is a Democrat, and quite a few of the Republicans in question hate her for cutting off their oil kickbacks. (a lot of politicians in Alaska were corrupt and they hate her for calling them on it)
Source?

I'm not blaming Obama personally on this one, I'm blaming the member of his campaign that headed up this investigation that should have recused himself due to conflicts of interest.
Again, please show me where you see that Sen. French is part of the Obama campaign.

jonathan7
10-11-2008, 09:55 PM
jonathan7, originally I was just going for anybody be President other than Hillary Clinton, then I found out about Obama's associations and the man has the gall to lie about them and now if this were the General Election and Hillary were on the ballot I'd vote for her over Obama.

If in the UK you had a man trying to be PM via his party and this man had a pastor for twenty years whom in a sermon said, "G D England!" or "G D Queen Elizabeth!" wouldn't you be a little concerned?

Not really - Britain hasn't had a good PM for the past 30-40 years - fears that a President or a PM could destroy a nation are greatly over stated as their powers is nowhere near as a great as many people believe. Though I generally think that these days those that want to be Presidents or PM should automatically not ever be allowed near the job.

GarfieldJL
10-11-2008, 10:10 PM
http://www.healthcarebs.com/2008/09/09/troopergate-meet-the-investigators/

Picture is from an Obama Campaign Headquarters.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 10:13 PM
Thanks for the link.

Please answer the rest of my points, though. In particular the one about the investigation starting before Palin was even the VP nominee.

GarfieldJL
10-11-2008, 10:20 PM
Thanks for the link.

Please answer the rest of my points, though. In particular the one about the investigation starting before Palin was even the VP nominee.

That is irrelevant, fact is he was a member of the Obama Campaign and a strong supporter of Senator Obama, because Governor Palin was now the VP nominee for John McCain, he had been given an incentive to try to come up with something embarassing regardless of whether or not it was true.

Because he had a vested interest, he and 2 other members of the investigation (whom are also in the Obama Campaign) should have recused themselves.

He wasn't just investigating he was also a member of the jury, it would be like having someone that hates your guts or stands to gain from you being convicted being on a jury in which you're being tried for a crime. It doesn't matter when in the case he suddenly stands to gain from a conviction, it just matters that it is before and during the case.

Rogue Nine
10-11-2008, 10:27 PM
That is irrelevant, fact is he was a member of the Obama Campaign and a strong supporter of Senator Obama, because Governor Palin was now the VP nominee for John McCain, he had been given an incentive to try to come up with something embarassing regardless of whether or not it was true.
I'd like to believe that people have more integrity than that.

Because he had a vested interest, he and 2 other members of the investigation (whom are also in the Obama Campaign) should have recused themselves.
A personal vested interest, or an interest for the Alaskan people?

And discounting the handful of Democrats on the panel, how do you explain why the Republicans voted unanimously in their decision?

He wasn't just investigating he was also a member of the jury, it would be like having someone that hates your guts or stands to gain from you being convicted being on a jury in which you're being tried for a crime. It doesn't matter when in the case he suddenly stands to gain from a conviction, it just matters that it is before and during the case.
What jury?

Nedak
10-11-2008, 10:35 PM
Godwin's law... You lose at tha intarwebz..
What..?

Also Clinton abused his power as governor of AK and as POTUS. Kennedy abused his power... Nixon actually pulled us out of Vietnam Johnson got us in... Research what happened to Clinton's friends...
I don't even like Clinton, I already know he's a piece of ****.

Um where the heck did McCain say he would raise taxes... The only one that has made that claim was Obama.
Obama would raise taxes for the RICH. Anybody making under 150k a year will have their taxes dropped...


in 2k Wasn't too keen on Gore...
Gee thanks, good thing we got Bush intead.

Han Sala, after that little rant, you say you're 'unbiased'? You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.
I prefer Obama over McCain, I've stated this many times. I am unbiased as in I don't have a natural bias. I give each candidate an equal chance to prove to me they can be president. I don't care what their party is, for christ sakes there shouldn't even be any parties, but that DOES make me naturally unbiased. Now, if you're going to say I favor Obama over McCain of course. I didn't in the beginning, but now I do because I believe Obama would actually help people.

Darth333
10-11-2008, 10:37 PM
Uh, the fact he wasn't doing his job gives her the right to fire him, he wasn't even investigating the matter. Again though the report states that it was only a contributing factor why he was fired, not the main reason.

...
Uh she didn't fire the trooper, she fired the man that was supposed to look in on stuff like this, for not doing his job and at the very least conduct an investigation.
...

Again though, he was refusing to investigate the matter, which was his job just because it happened to be Governor Palin's sister that the trooper was abusing, doesn't mean that trooper gets immunity for his actions.

If I might suggest some reading material, here is the real report: http://download1.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf

It beats all the news reports out there...

From what I can see in there, whether or not Wooten deserved to be fired is irrelevant. This is a matter of conflict of interests and violation of public trust by a public officer (a State Governor).

At page 8 of the report you will see that one of the findings is that Palin was in conflict of interests when she acted:


Finding Number One
"For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violation Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alasks Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides

The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."


Then starting at page 48 to page 64 of the report, the investigator describes the scope of the relevant section of the law and explains the evidence on which he has based the above finding.

The conclusion on the finding is contained at pages 65-68 of the report (Ive snipped a few sections to make it shorter):


[...] She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above cited statutes, 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. Her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act. That statute provides that:

'The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.'

Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooted fired. She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act.

Such impermissible and repeated contacts create conflicts of interest for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior's displeasure and the possible consequences of such displeasure. This was one of hte very reasons the Ethics Act was promulgated by the Legislature. That such a conflict of interest arises in such circumstances was best summarized by John Bitney, who summed it up when he testified:

MR. BITNEY: I seem to recall that I said 'I'll check it out,' or 'let me see what I can do.' I mean, you know, that was, you know. My recollection of my own sense was, you know, 'here's a friend of and' if you will 'the Governor's husband', who's got into office who's got a problem, you know, and someone that seems to be a serious problem for him, from my perspective. You know, when the First Gentleman comes into your office and says you got a problem, you sort of feel compelled to look into it and see if something can be done.

In this case, Governor Palin has declined to provide an interview. An interview would have assisted everyone to better understand her motives and perhaps help explain why she was so apparently intent upon getting Trooper Wooten fired in spit of the fact she knew he had been disciplined following the Administrative Investigation. She also knew that he had been permitted to keep his job, and that the disciplinary investigation was closed and could not be reopened. Yet she allowed the pressure from her husband, to try to get Trooper Wooten fired, to continue unabated over a several month-period of time.

Governor Palin has stated publicly that she and her family feared Trooper Wooten. Yet the evidence presented has been inconsistent with such claims of fear. The testimony from Trooper Wheeler, who was part of her security detail from the start, was that shortly after elected to office, she ordered a substantial reduction in manpoer in her personal protection detail in both Anchorage and Juneau, an act that is inconsistent with a desire to avoid harm from Trooper Wooten or others. Moreover, assumiung that Trooper Wooten was ever inclined to attack Governor Palin or a family member, logic dictates that getting him fired would accomplish nothing to eliminate the potential for harm to her or her family. On the contrary, it might just precipitate some retaliatory conduct on his part. Causing Wooten to loose his job would not have a de-escalated the situation, or provided her or her family with greater security.

Finally, it is noteworthy that in almist every contact with subordinate employees, Mr. Palin's comments were couched in terms of his desire to see Trooper Wooten fired for reasons that had nothing to do with fear. His comments were always couched in terms that he was a bad Trooper, that he was not a good recruiting image for AST, that his discipline amounted to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, that nothing had happened to him following the administrative investigation, and so forth. According to interview notes form the Attorney General who interviewed former Chief of Staff Mike Tibbles, Mr. Palin even sought to obtain information about Trooper Wooten that was confidential by law ['Todd Palin asked for Wooten's file,' 'wanted Grimed report,' 'refudes to give it him']. The words selected by Mr. Palin, and his actions, give insight into his motivation and that of his wife, Governor Palin.

I conclude that such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons."

KinchyB
10-12-2008, 12:53 AM
Because he had a vested interest, he and 2 other members of the investigation (whom are also in the Obama Campaign) should have recused themselves.

Ahhh, understand now. Democrats who have a "conflict of interest" must recuse themselves from anything they may have a bias in, however, Republicans can do pretty much whatever they want...such as going after their sister's ex-husband's job and putting other members of their staff in a situation that is a conflict of interest in doing so... that's okay...?

Again, pot calling the kettle black. BAD POT!!!

Sometimes some people should just admit their own biases...sheesh.

Oh yeah...Here's some additional reading that may help with your posts...link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy)

Achilles
10-12-2008, 01:59 AM
Not sure if this belongs here or in it's own thread. It is an example of Palin abusing her power, but within a different context of the current conversation.

As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state
WASILLA, Alaska - The camera closes in on Sarah Palin speaking to young missionaries, vowing from the pulpit to do her part to implement God's will from the governor's office.

What she didn't tell worshippers gathered at the Wasilla Assembly of God church in her hometown was that her appearance that day came courtesy of Alaskan taxpayers, who picked up the $639.50 tab for her airplane tickets and per diem fees.

An Associated Press review of the Republican vice presidential candidate's record as mayor and governor reveals her use of elected office to promote religious causes, sometimes at taxpayer expense and in ways that blur the line between church and state.
The rest of the article can be found here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/palin_church_and_state;_ylt=Ai2BySspTt2AQPnkhHhOHQ Gs0NUE)

Web Rider
10-12-2008, 02:36 AM
Well, to be honest she's pretty much said that's what she'd do in office in just about every interview she's been in. I hate how she qualifies everything she says with "if that's what the people want." Which people? Which wants are you hearing? In any case her imbuing religion into her office is hardly surprising considering even McCain has had to court rising evangelist figures to win the Republican base, Palin being one of them.

Astor
10-12-2008, 06:38 AM
The head is a Democrat, and quite a few of the Republicans in question hate her for cutting off their oil kickbacks. (a lot of politicians in Alaska were corrupt and they hate her for calling them on it)

So the person who headed this investigation has a record for rooting out corruption? Sounds like the perfect person to head up an investigation questioning an ethics violation.

Seems to me that may have been the reason they were picked. (Although, then again, I may be wrong, not knowing enough about the investigation).

If in the UK you had a man trying to be PM via his party and this man had a pastor for twenty years whom in a sermon said, "G D England!" or "G D Queen Elizabeth!" wouldn't you be a little concerned?

Religion isn't a massive part of British Politics, thank the maker - our politicians have pretty much learnt that we're not interested in their religious beliefs. (I know this isn't directly related to your question, but I thought i'd mention it).

Also, most of the clergy here are quite staid and boring - so we don't tend to get many people prone to such statements serving the church.

Litofsky
10-12-2008, 08:48 AM
Not sure if this belongs here or in it's own thread. It is an example of Palin abusing her power, but within a different context of the current conversation.

As governor, Palin at times bonds church and state

The rest of the article can be found here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_el_pr/palin_church_and_state;_ylt=Ai2BySspTt2AQPnkhHhOHQ Gs0NUE)

I'll show this to my friends, and perhaps see if I can get them away from voting McCain/Palin. To me, this is yet another reason not to vote for Palin.

Nice find, Achilles.

KinchyB
10-12-2008, 11:14 AM
I'll show this to my friends, and perhaps see if I can get them away from voting McCain/Palin. To me, this is yet another reason not to vote for Palin.

Also, this is not the first time Palin has abused her power to fire someone either...

link (http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html)

Edit...

From the Wasilla paper...

link #2 (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/13/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt)

Achilles
10-12-2008, 11:50 AM
Yeah, I was kind of ambivalent about Palin until I read about that and wanting equal time for creationism in science class. Then "President Palin" became the scariest thought ever.

Inyri
10-12-2008, 12:55 PM
Ugh, creationism is not science, it's theology. I have no problem with it being taught, but it needs to be taught in the right class.

EnderWiggin
10-12-2008, 01:09 PM
Did she though [violate the ethics act]?

Yes, she really did.

_EW_

KinchyB
10-13-2008, 01:35 PM
This is classic...

...and it's a quick read.

link (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/10/despite_report_finding_she_abu.php)

Achilles
10-13-2008, 02:17 PM
Yeah, I had to do a double-take on that one as well. :)

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 06:41 PM
I'd like to believe that people have more integrity than that.


Judging from the comments he made and the fact he was on the Obama Campaign, if he had integrity he should have resigned.


A personal vested interest, or an interest for the Alaskan people?


He had more of a personal interest, there were a few other members of the committee that also had a similar personal interest.


And discounting the handful of Democrats on the panel, how do you explain why the Republicans voted unanimously in their decision?


Because they had a seperate grudge with her, she is popular among the general populace, not among the politicians in government.



What jury?

The people that wrote the report.

Ahhh, understand now. Democrats who have a "conflict of interest" must recuse themselves from anything they may have a bias in, however, Republicans can do pretty much whatever they want...such as going after their sister's ex-husband's job and putting other members of their staff in a situation that is a conflict of interest in doing so... that's okay...?


Uh if the report is accurate which I've shown a legitimate reason to throw that in doubt. The guy that was supposed to do the investigating into incidents like this was fired for not doing his job and investigating the allegations. At the very least that state trooper should have been under investigation for some of these allegations. What was the guy that was supposed to investigate stuff like that doing? Cause he sure wasn't investigating the complaints which was part of his job description.

I could call that firing the guy based on gross negligence on his part.

Yeah, I was kind of ambivalent about Palin until I read about that and wanting equal time for creationism in science class. Then "President Palin" became the scariest thought ever.

If she ended up becoming President, that would have absolutely no chance of passing into law as you and I both know. The reason it would never happen is because of the legislative branch wouldn't allow her to do something like that in the first place. The would need to be a supermajority of people in both the House and Senate in order to push something like that thru to the President's desk and there isn't a chance of that happening.

Achilles
10-13-2008, 06:49 PM
If she ended up becoming President, that would have absolutely no chance of passing into law as you and I both know. Really? Why should I "know" that?

Ever heard of the Patriot Act? How about the Military Commissions Act? You think the Republican base wouldn't turn out in droves in for the mid-term election to put a Republican Congress back in action to get this passed if they thought it was on the table?

Dear sir, after the last 8 years, I know better than to assume that the checks and balances work unattended.

The reason it would never happen is because of the legislative branch wouldn't allow her to do something like that in the first place.See above.

The would need to be a supermajority of people in both the House and Senate in order to push something like that thru to the President's desk and there isn't a chance of that happening.There isn't? Why not? If you need help, see above.

Rogue Nine
10-13-2008, 06:51 PM
Judging from the comments he made and the fact he was on the Obama Campaign, if he had integrity he should have resigned.
Yeah, okay. :rolleyes:

He had more of a personal interest, there were a few other members of the committee that also had a similar personal interest.
Senator French said that he was excited about Obama's plans for Alaska. He didn't say he was excited because Obama was going to give him a promotion. I think this shows that he had Alaska's best interests at heart rather than his own.


Because they had a seperate grudge with her, she is popular among the general populace, not among the politicians in government.
Still waiting on you to source this for me, until then I'm going to have to believe you're making this up.

The people that wrote the report.
One person wrote the report, the independent investigator Branchflower. The panel that commissioned him was made up of legislators who do not exercise judicial powers since it is not assigned to them. Calling them a jury is erroneous.


I like how you've completely ignored everyone else's posts, particularly Darth333's, which are far more salient than my own with regards to this issue.

KinchyB
10-13-2008, 06:54 PM
Uh if the report is accurate which I've shown a legitimate reason to throw that in doubt. The guy that was supposed to do the investigating into incidents like this was fired for not doing his job and investigating the allegations. At the very least that state trooper should have been under investigation for some of these allegations. What was the guy that was supposed to investigate stuff like that doing? Cause he sure wasn't investigating the complaints which was part of his job description.



100% completely and totally irrilevant. By the way, phenomenal job of avoiding the point of Palin avoiding a situation like this by having an independent third party evaluate the situation before she fired him. Now understand, we aren't saying he didn't deserve to be fired, and that she fired him illegally. Those things are 100% within her legal right and acceptable. The issue is how she and her staff violated an Ethics act in the process of her firing Monegan and Wooten.

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 07:13 PM
The McCain camp is zeroing on political action taken by Alaskan Democrats Hollis French and Kim Elton against Republican Governor Palin. Both Democrats have endorsed Obama for president and are currently supporting his candidacy.

Last week, Alaskan Republicans asked Alaska’s Legislature’s Legislative Council, which appointed Hollis to lead the investigation, to replace Hollis with someone less partisan. Their request was denied by fellow Democrat and Obama-supporter Elton, who sits at the head of the Legislative Council.

In interviews, Hollis has suggested his investigation may culminate in an “October surprise,” perhaps Palin's impeachment as Governor, that could help the Democrats win the White House in November. ABC News quoted Hollis saying “If they had done their job they never would have picked her,” referring to the McCain campaign’s vetting process. “Now they may have to deal with an October surprise.”


http://townhall.com/blog/g/57ac8c6b-61a4-411d-bd23-7cc920340877

Rogue Nine, Senator French and a few others were in the tank for Obama in the first place, they also stood to gain from digging up something whether it be true or not.

Inyri
10-13-2008, 07:15 PM
I assume it's also the democrats' fault that Palin tried to fire a librarian who refused to censor books? Do you agree with banning books as well?

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 07:26 PM
I assume it's also the democrats' fault that Palin tried to fire a librarian who refused to censor books? Do you agree with banning books as well?

While I believe you've seen stories like that, I don't believe she actually did that (or we're not being given the full story as to what actually happened), because of her approval ratings in Alaska are extremely high.


Here's why I ask. The organization's report on Palin coverage, which was issued on September 8, convincingly establishes that Palin didn't cut funding for special-needs students, despite what CNN's Soledad O'Brien said; that she didn't endorse Pat Buchanan in 2000; that then-Mayor Palin didn't actually ban books from the Wasilla (AK) public library; and that, unlike her husband, she was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party.

http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/dontquoteme/archive/2008/09/10/the-quot-sliming-quot-of-palin-did-factcheck-exaggerate.aspx

Some of this source I'm going to do some looking into, but it does show that parts of the accusations you're bringing up are simply untrue. And it does show there is more to the story than what the media is reporting.

Inyri
10-13-2008, 07:32 PM
While I believe you've seen stories like that, I don't believe she actually did that (or we're not being given the full story as to what actually happened), because of her approval ratings in Alaska are extremely high.Right, because the associated press (and the dozens of other news sources) is lying. Probably because Fox News hasn't reported on it yet, right?

Palin has acknowledged she twice raised the issue in 1996 of how books could be removed from the shelves, but said it was only a "rhetorical question" and that she did not ask for any books to be banned.The same week that Palin raised the issue she fired Baker (then using her married name Emmons) as librarian, claiming she was not "loyal" to the new administration and had supported Palin's opponent in the election. She said the dismissal was not connected to questions of censorship, and that she had dismissed all city department heads and told them they could re-apply for their jobs.Sounds fishy at best.

Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5766173&page=1)

Rogue Nine
10-13-2008, 07:46 PM
http://townhall.com/blog/g/57ac8c6b-61a4-411d-bd23-7cc920340877

Rogue Nine, Senator French and a few others were in the tank for Obama in the first place, they also stood to gain from digging up something whether it be true or not.
Haha, please find a better source than that. The author does not cite any of her claims and the fact that she refers to Senator French as 'Hollis' is indicative of the low quality of the source.

And you still have not shown me how the other Republicans on the panel 'do not like Sarah Palin because of kickbacks' or whatever you said before. Nor have you addressed any of the other issues that people have since brought up in this thread. If you want to have any sort of credibility, you might want to quit cherry picking and answer everything that's been questioned here.

mimartin
10-13-2008, 08:04 PM
Really? Why should I "know" that?You shouldn't, first consider Bush's history with signing statements, now consider Palin with that power. :explode:

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 08:38 PM
Right, because the associated press (and the dozens of other news sources) is lying. Probably because Fox News hasn't reported on it yet, right?


When it is a liberal news group or several liberal news groups especially given recent history, I'm inclined not to believe them at all. Considering the National Enquirer has been proven to have a higher standard when it comes to sources, and the fact of they are so in the tank on Obama they need air tanks cause they are too deep for the air hoses to reach.

Most News groups get their news straight off the AP without back checking, only Fox News to my knowledge tries to find a second source rather than just running with the AP source.

Inyri
10-13-2008, 08:40 PM
When it is a liberal news group or several liberal news groups especially given recent history, I'm inclined not to believe them at all. Considering the National Enquirer has been proven to have a higher standard when it comes to sources, and the fact of they are so in the tank on Obama they need air tanks cause they are too deep for the air hoses to reach.That continues to be a convenient response for you when confronted with facts that suggest your radical way of thinking might not be entirely accurate.

Might you provided something other than "they're liberal, so it's a lie because I said so"?

GarfieldJL
10-13-2008, 08:43 PM
That continues to be a convenient response for you when confronted with facts that suggest your radical way of thinking might not be entirely accurate.

Might you provided something other than "they're liberal, so it's a lie because I said so"?

No, I'm going to say they shouldn't be trusted do to their recent track record.


See Bernie Goldberg's books Bias and Arrogance.

Achilles
10-13-2008, 08:59 PM
See Bernie Goldberg's books Bias and Arrogance.And then read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? (http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/) which shows precisely why no one should waste their money on Bernie Goldberg books. :rolleyes:

jrrtoken
10-13-2008, 09:31 PM
And then read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? (http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/) which shows precisely why no one should waste their money on Bernie Goldberg books. :rolleyes:Al Franken also said the same thing with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, of course, his book had jokes in it, so it's infinitely better. :D

But yeah, the whole point is that the mainstream media's "liberal bias" is a myth, concocted by conservative pundits and politicians.

Achilles
10-13-2008, 09:35 PM
Al Franken also said the same thing with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, of course, his book had jokes in it, so it's infinitely better. :DYup, I own that one too. Neither one holds a candle to this book (http://www.amazon.com/I-Hate-Ann-Coulter-Unanimous/dp/1416936599) though.

But yeah, the whole point is that the mainstream media's "liberal bias" is a myth, concocted by conservative pundits and politicians.Precisely. The "corporate media" bias is the one we should be talking about.

KinchyB
10-13-2008, 09:54 PM
No, I'm going to say they shouldn't be trusted do to their recent track record.

Ahh, so articles that don't agree with what you think should be disregarded. That explains the cherry picking. :xp:

Astor
10-14-2008, 03:48 AM
Probably because Fox News hasn't reported on it yet, right?

I'd like to say that I was curious to see how Fox was spinning the whole thing during the weekend - and strangely the page wouldn't load - after six goes.

Coincidence?

Also, Garfield, you haven't adressed my point about the head of the investigation being the best person for the job due to their removal of oil kickbacks.

Do you, or do you not agree that someone with a history of fighting corruption is a good choice to head up an ethics panel, apparent 'bias' or not?

GarfieldJL
10-15-2008, 12:03 PM
Al Franken also said the same thing with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, of course, his book had jokes in it, so it's infinitely better. :D

But yeah, the whole point is that the mainstream media's "liberal bias" is a myth, concocted by conservative pundits and politicians.

Media Research Center disagrees with you:
http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/RevWright/RevWrightExecSum.asp

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080911.asp#1


liberal bias myth my foot.


One could right a book just on MSNBC concerning the level of it's pro-Democrat/left wing bias on their 2008 election coverage alone. Fact is you'd need a book for each of the media outlets. This idea that all the media outlets except Fox News report the news accurately quite frankly ignores the facts.

Also, Garfield, you haven't adressed my point about the head of the investigation being the best person for the job due to their removal of oil kickbacks.


Uh the one that did the removal of oil kickbacks was Governor Palin whom is a Republican, the head of the investigation (whom works for the Obama Campaign I might add) to my knowledge didn't have a thing to do with it.


Do you, or do you not agree that someone with a history of fighting corruption is a good choice to head up an ethics panel, apparent 'bias' or not?


What history of fighting corruption? Anyways, the man works for the Obama Campaign, you can't tell me he would be remotely impartial when it comes to someone he's campaigning against. If this situation was reversed and it was an investigation concerning Joe Biden and the investigator worked on the McCain campaign you'd be blowing a gasket as would the mainstream media.

Astor
10-15-2008, 12:38 PM
Then I may have been mistaken due to a lack of clarity on the part of several people (myself included).

And actually, I wouldn't be blowing a gasket - i'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican.

GarfieldJL
10-15-2008, 01:06 PM
And then read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? (http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/) which shows precisely why no one should waste their money on Bernie Goldberg books. :rolleyes:

I'll believe a liberal criticizing the liberal bias of the media over a liberal denying there is any left-wing bias in the media.


And actually, I wouldn't be blowing a gasket - i'm not a Democrat, nor a Republican.

If you're trying to provoke me it's not going to work.

Anyways, you're telling me if Joe Biden were under investigation and the lead investigator among others were active members of the McCain campaign, you wouldn't have a problem with this? Am I correct in that is what you're saying for the record?

Astor
10-15-2008, 01:09 PM
If you're trying to provoke me it's not going to work.

I can honestly say I have no idea what you mean. I see no provocation in my post, and none was intended. The reason i'm neither is because i'm not American - you may think liberal and democrat are the same, but i'm not a Democrat.

Anyways, you're telling me if Joe Biden were under investigation and the lead investigator among others were active members of the McCain campaign, you wouldn't have a problem with this? Am I correct in that is what you're saying for the record?

That's correct - I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Achilles
10-15-2008, 02:23 PM
I'll believe a liberal criticizing the liberal bias of the media over a liberal denying there is any left-wing bias in the media.That's fine. I do think some of us are wondering at what point facts and logic become important to you though.

GarfieldJL
10-15-2008, 03:03 PM
That's fine. I do think some of us are wondering at what point facts and logic become important to you though.

Facts and logic are always important to me, just I'm not going to take sources at face value, especially when sources have a consistant track record of lower standards than the National Enquirer when it comes to negative stories about Republicans, the New York Times being a perfect example. I'm not going to believe them when it comes to a scandal concerning a Republican and would question the authenticity of anything they provided, because of their poor track record.

Most Media Outlets lost my trust in the 2004 election, I used to watch MSNBC, I used to pay attention to CNN, heck I didn't even watch Fox News at first. (Started watching Fox News in 2001)

The other News outlets in recent years have made a series of gaffs when it comes to reporting, and over time as I started watching Fox News and the level of criticism it got from the other outlets, I was actually impressed with the depth of research Fox News did, the way they split up programs so that the objectively reporting the news was kept seperate from giving their opinions (a stark difference from reporting opinions as objective journalism).

2004 - CBS lost all credibility with memogate which should more suitably be called Rathergate.

Using a forged document with a font that wasn't even in existance at the timeperiod in question, with the font being variably spaced (and it was supposed to be from a typewriter which can only do fixed space), and then continuely claiming it was legit caused them to lose all credibility in my eyes.

After 04, continued to watch Hardball with Chris Matthews but gradually started to switch over more to Bill O'Reilly, because I liked his no nonsense style a lot more, I was also noticing a change in how Chris Matthews was doing his commentaries, becoming more and more left-wing as time went on.

The last straw me occurred in 2006, the Israeli/Lebanon conflict to be precise. The pictures the other media outlets touted as proof the Israelis were deliberately trying to kill civilians were so obviously doctored, that I could easily tell they were doctored.

Fox News was the only news organization that refused to air the photos as legit, and was the first news organization to really go after reuters concerning them.

And there have been more recent incidents that have reinforced my opinion that the left wing mainstream media has less credibility than the National Enquirer when it comes to reporting negatives on Republicans.

So that is why I believe that your sources aren't telling the full truth, like the fact this trooper she wanted fired and supposedly fired a guy for not firing him, had such a track record that most people would be wondering why the heck wasn't the lunatic fired sooner.

Tasering 10 year old step son. -- said the boy wanted to be tasered
Driving a police squad car (on duty) while intoxicated and with an open container. -- convicted
Killing a moose out of season. -- guy said he didn't know (this is a state trooper whom should know)
Death threats towards Governor Palin's dad, and members of the family
Abused Governor Palin's sister.


Excuse me, but why wasn't this nut even under investigation, because we all know that this guy was reported to this safety guy. This guy Palin supposedly fired over not firing her ex-brother-in-law wasn't even bothering to investigate the situation.

Now it would be different if the safety guy, said he'd look into it and while investigating it he ended up finding that stuff was false and decided not to fire him. But he didn't even do any investigation, so if he was fired over this quite frankly he wasn't doing his job in the first place and should have been fired for being an incompetitent idiot.

Achilles
10-15-2008, 03:13 PM
I'm not going to take sources at face valueThanks. I needed some levity today.

KinchyB
10-15-2008, 03:14 PM
So that is why I believe that your sources aren't telling the full truth, like the fact this trooper she wanted fired and supposedly fired a guy for not firing him, had such a track record that most people would be wondering why the heck wasn't the lunatic fired sooner.

Again the issue is not the people being fired (which is stated in the report) it's the unethical actions that were taken before they were fired. Perhaps you should look at the facts regarding the investigation again (maybe read the report...?) and then address this topic.

GarfieldJL
10-15-2008, 06:30 PM
Again the issue is not the people being fired (which is stated in the report) it's the unethical actions that were taken before they were fired. Perhaps you should look at the facts regarding the investigation again (maybe read the report...?) and then address this topic.

Answer me this, was this public safety guy investigating (or had investigated) the state trooper in question based on the allegations when he was fired?

That's the key part to this if she fired this guy over the trooper.

KinchyB
10-15-2008, 08:55 PM
That's the key part to this if she fired this guy over the trooper.

First, his past actions are completely irrellevant as we are looking at the actions of Palin, which violated the ethics act of Alaska.

You can focus as much as you want on who the guy is, however, the fact that you will not address Palin's violation of the ethic act proves you believe this to be fact. If this is not fact, you should really find another argument other than "The guy deserved it" as that is not sufficient in proving Palin did not violate the ethics act.

Hopefully that's somewhat clear as you seem to be confused as to what the report is about. If you are curious I would recommend going through the thread and finding a link directly to the report to familiarize yourself with it's findings.

EnderWiggin
10-16-2008, 06:44 AM
which should more suitably be called Rathergate.

Nothing is more suitably named if it has a -gate suffix.

Nothing; never ever again should I have to hear *stupidword*gate.

So yeah.

Oh, and I agree with KinchyB's assertion that you're unfamiliar with what the report actually says.

_EW_

Achilles
10-16-2008, 07:10 AM
Nothing; never ever again should I have to hear *stupidword*gate.Can I getta "amen"!?

It was called "Watergate" because the name of the hotel was "Watergate". This adding "gate" on to the end of stuff to denote controversy makes me want to hide from all the Europeans that I just know are laughing at us.

And it's "troop (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troop)" not "troops"! [/unrelated rant]
So it's "group" not "groups"? ~tk

I'll get back to you if/when we start referring to individual members of a group as "groups". -Achilles

GarfieldJL
10-16-2008, 12:32 PM
First, his past actions are completely irrellevant as we are looking at the actions of Palin, which violated the ethics act of Alaska.


Actually in this case it is, because if he wasn't investigating the situation and basically refusing to investigate then she didn't abuse her power.

In an event like that she would be justified to fire him, the only reason people are in an uproar is because it happened to involve a member of the family.


If he wasn't doing his job, then in your argument this guy would be immune to being fired for not doing his job the only way he could have been fired was for her to resign from office, because only the Governor could fire him.

KinchyB
10-16-2008, 06:19 PM
Actually in this case it is, because if he wasn't investigating the situation and basically refusing to investigate then she didn't abuse her power.

Again...firing him is not the issue. If this is the only thing you are coming up with as an argument I would recommend reading the report again.

In an event like that she would be justified to fire him, the only reason people are in an uproar is because it happened to involve a member of the family.

Actually, the fact that he is an (ex)member of the family is irrellevant. Palin could have done the same thing to any other person she had a personal beef with and been in hot water.

If he wasn't doing his job, then in your argument this guy would be immune to being fired for not doing his job the only way he could have been fired was for her to resign from office, because only the Governor could fire him.

Well, there is the option of firing him before her sister and him were going through a bad divorce... But since that didn't happen you have to accept the fact that again Palin misused her power in keeping her brother-in-law employed when it was blatant she should have fired him to begin with since there is so much evidence.

Also, there are several things Palin could have done to protect herself in this situation, but she didn't. That is almost proof within itself that she wasn't using sound judgment in this situation. Combine that with the interference the McCain campaign gave it's pretty obvious she realized she messed up but it was too late to correct it.

Achilles
10-16-2008, 06:21 PM
Combine that with the interference the McCain campaign gave it's pretty obvious she realized she messed up but it was too late to correct it.In her defense, she probably didn't realize that she was going to be the Vice Presidential nominee, complete with vetting, etc when this happened. In other words, it probably never occurred to her that she would need to cover it up, but she never anticipated the attention. The argument that she probably wishes that she'd done a better job of hiding it falls flat if she never intended to hide it.

KinchyB
10-16-2008, 06:46 PM
In her defense, she probably didn't realize that she was going to be the Vice Presidential nominee, complete without vetting, etc when this happened. In other words, it probably never occurred to her that she would need to cover it up, but she never anticipated the attention. The argument that she probably wishes that she'd done a better job of hiding it falls flat if she never intended to hide it.

Fixed :xp:

and...

touche :)

Darth333
10-16-2008, 06:53 PM
Excuse me, but why wasn't this nut even under investigation, because we all know that this guy was reported to this safety guy. This guy Palin supposedly fired over not firing her ex-brother-in-law wasn't even bothering to investigate the situation.

Now it would be different if the safety guy, said he'd look into it and while investigating it he ended up finding that stuff was false and decided not to fire him. But he didn't even do any investigation, so if he was fired over this quite frankly he wasn't doing his job in the first place and should have been fired for being an incompetitent idiot.
err...did you read my post on page two? The report says:

"In this case, Governor Palin has declined to provide an interview. An interview would have assisted everyone to better understand her motives and perhaps help explain why she was so apparently intent upon getting Trooper Wooten fired in spit of the fact she knew he had been disciplined following the Administrative Investigation. She also knew that he had been permitted to keep his job, and that the disciplinary investigation was closed and could not be reopened. Yet she allowed the pressure from her husband, to try to get Trooper Wooten fired, to continue unabated over a several month-period of time."

GarfieldJL
10-17-2008, 01:45 PM
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/09/truth-about-palins-troopergate.html

Looks like the charges and stuff go back a while and even a Judge was involved in recommending this guy be fired. (the trooper)

EnderWiggin
10-17-2008, 05:42 PM
Actually in this case it is, because if he wasn't investigating the situation and basically refusing to investigate then she didn't abuse her power.

:headbump

You're not even listening to what we're saying!

_EW_

Corinthian
10-17-2008, 05:45 PM
Doesn't sound like you are, either.

EnderWiggin
10-17-2008, 05:47 PM
Doesn't sound like you are, either.

I'm not listening to what he's saying?

I'm not the one saying the same thing over and over even though everyone has pointed out where in the documented case he was wrong.

_EW_

KinchyB
10-17-2008, 06:52 PM
Doesn't sound like you are, either.

No we hear you... she was justified in firing the guy... but unfortunately she went about it the wrong way and let her personal issues with they guy get in the way. Hence why this is an Ethics issue and not a Legal issue (As of yet).

Now, we are taking bets... who will be the first to acknowledge that Palin did actually act unethically... Garfield (10 to 1) or Corinthian (7 to 1) or neither (1 to 1) :xp:

Corinthian
10-17-2008, 07:00 PM
Well, she may have violated ethics laws. That doesn't mean she acted unethically. Especially since, as you say, she had justification.

KinchyB
10-17-2008, 11:33 PM
Well, she may have violated ethics laws. That doesn't mean she acted unethically. Especially since, as you say, she had justification.

Ummm... you really can't say she may have violated ethics laws and then in the next sentence say that doesn't mean she acted unethically. As in order to violate an ethic law (or act in this case) you do actually have to do something unethical, which they found she did. Justification for the firing is 100% irrellevant if you go out of your way to fire someone due to an issue you may have them. I like to refer to the below equation in this instance...

(reasons to fire someone x 1) + (personal issues x (-1000))

If the end result is a negative number... there is an issue and you better cover yourself... ie... get a judge to right off on it... hire an outside impartial lawyer... have everything documented... don't do anything stupid that could increment yourself... wait for them to really mess up and then make an example out of them...

What you don't do is use reasons they've already been punished for to fire them or fire their superior for disagreeing with your assessment. Both of those a no no's. The later one you can probably get around, but the first one is much more difficult.

Had she done any of the first things she could have avoided this, or at least minimized it. It's just like how you would run a business... cover yourself 100%, document everything, and don't do anything too horribly dumb (but this last one happens in every business anyway :xp:)

Tommycat
10-18-2008, 12:05 AM
Ummm... you really can't say she may have violated ethics laws and then in the next sentence say that doesn't mean she acted unethically. As in order to violate an ethic law (or act in this case) you do actually have to do something unethical, which they found she did. Justification for the firing is 100% irrellevant if you go out of your way to fire someone due to an issue you may have them. I like to refer to the below equation in this instance...

(reasons to fire someone x 1) + (personal issues x (-1000))

If the end result is a negative number... there is an issue and you better cover yourself... ie... get a judge to right off on it... hire an outside impartial lawyer... have everything documented... don't do anything stupid that could increment yourself... wait for them to really mess up and then make an example out of them...

What you don't do is use reasons they've already been punished for to fire them or fire their superior for disagreeing with your assessment. Both of those a no no's. The later one you can probably get around, but the first one is much more difficult.

Had she done any of the first things she could have avoided this, or at least minimized it. It's just like how you would run a business... cover yourself 100%, document everything, and don't do anything too horribly dumb (but this last one happens in every business anyway :xp:)

Negative. Your equation is highly flawed. That -1000 is completely arbitrary. If you have a personal disagreement with someone, you can in business fire them without cause. In Palin's case she had more than the one instance as reason to fire the guy. She was well within her legal rights to fire the guy. While she may not have had the right to fire Wooten, however she can fire a guy that is not doing their job.

Question: Was Wooten fired under the new guy? or did Palin just stop going after Wooten after she fired Monegan?

KinchyB
10-18-2008, 12:11 AM
If you have a personal disagreement with someone, you can in business fire them without cause.

I see a lot of lawsuits in your future. Every business in the U.S. would fail due to liability costs if this were true.

In Palin's case she had more than the one instance as reason to fire the guy. She was well within her legal rights to fire the guy. While she may not have had the right to fire Wooten, however she can fire a guy that is not doing their job.

Again... and hopefully the last time but I doubt it... him being fired is not the issue... it's Did she violate the Ethics Act in firing him and the panel, the majority of which were republican, all agreed with the report in that she did violate the ethics act.

So, she could have fired him without violating the ethics act had she done so differently. Unfortunately the way she went about did violate the act.

Again, focus on the ethics, not the firing of the individual.

Achilles
10-18-2008, 12:17 AM
I see a lot of lawsuits in your future. Every business in the U.S. would fail due to liability costs if this were true.Yup. Even in right-to-work states, employers are liable if they are found to have fired people using discriminatory practices and/or in retaliation. Doesn't mean they aren't fired, just means the person doing the firing (usually all by themselves as the company will settle their portion of the lawsuit out of court) is in a lot of doo-doo.

Not sure how many employment law classes KinchyB had to take for his Masters degrees, but I seem to recall having to take a few for the one I have.

Tommycat
10-18-2008, 12:35 AM
Hah you haven't seen how things have been working around the real world have you.... Figures.. all book not practical experience.

While I don't think this is a direct flame, this stinks of arrogance, assuming something of someone else and what their experiences are, or are not, regardless of your opinions of KinchyB, I think his time in Kavars has revealed him to be a well researched person, please tread carefully when making comments about others which could be untrue, consider all of yourselves warned I'm stamping down on these snarky comments, more like these will result in infractions being issued - j7

In practice they can manufacture a reason after the fact. Seen many businesses do this in practice. There just isn't enough pressure on them by the terminated employees. "Business ethics" is an oxymoron.

Regardless. the -1000 number is purely arbitrary. I could easily rewrite that equasion with
if reason to fire person(x 1) > personal issues(x 10) then fire the guy.

However that does not take into account that I may have a personal problem with someone, and the person may also be either not coming in to work, or passing their work off on someone else(as was the stated case for Monegan). Or even one big reason would outweigh even 10 personal issues. Monegan was fired for not doing the job he was hired to do.

KinchyB
10-18-2008, 12:42 AM
There just isn't enough pressure on them by the terminated employees. "Business ethics" is an oxymoron.

Exactly, it's up to the employee and in this case the employee fought back and was vindicated. If the employee does nothing then the business can do what it wants, which is why the employee must understand and know what rights they have.

P.S. if you took the equation seriously I'll do a better job of making things that are 100% made up blatantly obvious in the future.

Achilles
10-18-2008, 12:52 AM
Exactly, it's up to the employee and in this case the employee fought back and was vindicated. If the employee does nothing then the business can do what it wants, which is why the employee must understand and know what rights they have. Not exactly. In the case of discrimination, a suit can be filed by the EEOC on behalf of the employee after the employee or a witness files a complaint and the subsequent investigation finds evidence of wrongdoing.

Not terribly relevant to the exact situation that we're discussing, however I do think it falsifies what little of Tommycat's post I could see in your reply as well as corrects the impression that employee is always on their own.

KinchyB
10-18-2008, 12:57 AM
Not exactly. In the case of discrimination, a suit can be filed by the EEOC on behalf of the employee after the employee or a witness files a complaint and the subsequent investigation finds evidence of wrongdoing.

Not terribly relevant to the exact situation that we're discussing, however I do think it falsifies what little of Tommycat's post I could see in your reply as well as corrects the impression that employee is always on their own.

Good point... there is always the EEOC. Admittedly the one example I thought of with this was an employee filing a complaint on his own behalf (which in that case was BS, but no one got fined or last their jobs because of it fortunately), but Achilles is correct, someone else could also file the complaint.

Achilles
10-18-2008, 01:11 AM
Some organization will even hold an employee liable if they witness an unethical act (i.e. sexual harrassment, etc) and fail to report it to their boss/human resources department/ombudsman's office/et cetera.

Altruistic? Hardly. No company likes having to step into a courtroom and some are better at avoiding it than others.

Jae Onasi
10-18-2008, 08:56 PM
If you have a personal disagreement with someone, you can in business fire them without cause.

I see a lot of lawsuits in your future. Every business in the U.S. would fail due to liability costs if this were true.Wisconsin is an at-will employer state, meaning someone can be fired at any time for no cause at all, with the exception of something like racial discrimination or other violation of a fed regulation.

Achilles
10-18-2008, 11:22 PM
Wisconsin is an at-will employer state We're discussing Alaska.

...meaning someone can be fired at any time for no cause at all, with the exception of something like racial discrimination or other violation of a fed regulation.Again, we're discussing whether or not she violated ethics regulations, not whether or not the individual deserved to be fired.