They're just acting on principle, of course, because any questions about Palin are sexist: "Key Alaska allies of John McCain are trying to derail a politically charged investigation into Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner in order to prevent a so-called 'October surprise' that would produce embarrassing information about the vice presidential candidate on the eve of the election."

Comments

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Ed: Do you think someone who tasered 10-year-old while not in the line of duty should be a law enforcement officer?

[Ed Cone]

Jeff, you seem to be arguing that Palin had good reason to want the trooper fired. That may be so, although neither of us know the accuracy of the allegations made against the trooper in the course of a custody battle with Palin's sister.

However, the subject of the investigation is whether Palin acted improperly to remove her commissioner of public safety.

[Dave Dobson]

I know I'm supposed to be some sort of bleeding heart guy, but politics aside, if it's taking place in the family, the kid was curious, and the father was trained and knew if there were any risks (which I don't), then I don't think it's that huge a deal.

Obviously "tasered a 10-year-old" sounds much worse than "tasered his son" sounds much worse than "his son was curious and he obliged." Fathers and sons do all kinds of dumb-ass stuff that they'd rather their wives and mothers didn't know about, and this doesn't seem so bad. It's not great judgment, and probably worth getting written up, but it's not an abuse of office. Illegal hunting (as a law officer) and drinking in his patrol car seem to me to be the far worse offenses for Wooten.

But there are videos all over YouTube of family members tasering others. I really don't think Palin was trying to get him canned out of concern for her stepson's safety - that makes no sense. Regardless, if there was a disciplinary process that was followed, Palin had no business trying to interfere for a family member.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

My assumption is that if she is the governor she can remove anyone she wants who answers to her.

I think I would still be more worried about someone who has a history of plagiarism in his public life than I would someone who exercised their executive power to run their administration they way they wanted to.

But that's just me.

I also get tired of tearing down all our leaders over every microscopic thought and action, but since most folks play the game, I can play along.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

My last post was in reference to the public safety commissioner, not the trooper. Just to clarify since Dave beat me to the post button.

[Ed Cone]

Investigating a governor for using public office to settle private scores is equivalent to "tearing down all our leaders over every microscopic thought and action?"

You liberals never cease to amaze me.

[justcorbly]

A governor, or a vice president, takes an oath to uphold the laws and the constitution, full stop. The oath does not include a qualifying phrase exempting actions motivated by family or maternal concern, however legitimate.

If Palin has nothing to hide, she should not only cooperate fully with the investigation, she should want it completed as publicly and as quickly as possible. Since the campaign is working to delay or stop the probe, I conclude she does have something to hide.

Nor must we wait until we have all been absolved of our sins and made pure before we can criticize someone else.

[Dave Ribar]

Jeff:

According to the AK state police, the different charges against the trooper were investigated; some were upheld, and he was punished but not fired. Gov. Palin, her husband, and her staff continued to go after the guy (one reason the state AG is not investigating this himself is that he made inquiries on Palin's behalf). One substantial charge is that Palin may have removed a public official (one who serves at her pleasure) because he did not pursue this enough. Another charge is that Palin and her staff may have obtained private workmen's compensation records on the trooper (shades of Craig Livingstone?). Finally, it appears that Palin has flat-out lied about the matter, saying that her husband and staff made these inquiries/demands independently but that she did not try to get the guy fired (e-mails from her personal account contradict this). In any case, the majority Republican Alaska state legislature determined that the concerns were serious enough that they merited investigation.

As if this wasn't enough, Palin herself promised to cooperate with the state legislature's investigation and said that she had nothing to hide. That was before the nomination. Now she's changed her story and is refusing to cooperate. She, through her lawyer, has also instructed a staff member that she put on paid leave because of his improper contacts not to cooperate.

To make matters even worse, the McCain campaign may be the ones advising her to stonewall.

[john burns]

She could probably put the whole thing to rest by holding a press conference with people other than the local WB station.

[Spag]

Of course, one of the leading Democrats officials involved in the investigation already said it could very well be an October Surprise, specifically using that term, so we know that the partisans on the other side are playing games with it too.

In the end, it is doubtful that anything will come from it. The real question isn't whether she pressured to have the trooper fired. I believe that is entirely appropriate given the guys history and admission that he would kill Palin's parents. The bigger issue is the termination of the public safety director who refused to fire the trooper. From what I can glean, he said he never felt pressure from Palin and concedes there were other reasons for his dismissal. Even if there weren't, it is a discretionary function of the governor and there was no politics involved. A state trooper who threatens to kill the governors parents deserves to be fired and I think the public will side with Palin. There are no legalities involved in any of this, this is entirely about ethics and public opinion.

[Dave Ribar]

Sam:

The only partisan games that we "know" about are Palin's ceasing cooperation with the panel and her earlier actions to use the Deputy A.G. as a back-door way to conduct her own discovery process.

[Ged Maheux]

Well said Dave. Of course, we could ask her to clear this entire mess up, but for some reason, she won't talk to the press. In fact, she won't be talking to any press for a very long time. She's supposed to be ready to take over the Presidency right now, but she can't answer questions from the media? Whatever.

[justcorbly]

That "October surprise" remark seems more realistic than partisan to me. An investigation due to conclude by 31 October was underway before McCain chose Palin. The investigation will either exonerate Palin or find her at fault. If the latter happens 5 days before the election, I think it qualifies as an October surprise.

The fact that McCain knew this and chose Palin anyway casts more doubt on his judgement.

[Anthony]

Show of hands - who thought it was wrong that our local government wasn't transparent with the Wray affair, and tried to avoid accountability by stonewalling on document requests from the public?

Show of hands - who thinks it's wrong that Palin may avoid accountability due to efforts to delay or derail this investigation into the allegations against her?

Someone once said "A resolute society holds the government accountable." Should this be an exception to that?

[Spag]

McCain knew what?

Let's suppose that right here in NC, we have an out of control District Attorney. We'll call him Mike Nifong. Then let's suppose that the governor of this State who appointed Nifong, whom we will call Mike Easley, sees that Nifong is out of control and calls the Attorney General, whom we will call Roy Cooper and says "Roy, I can't believe that Nifong still has a job. He is prosecuting innocent people and nothing is being done about it."

Let's stop there for now. Let's assume that the governors concerns are valid. Has he broken any laws in voicing his opinion to Cooper?

Now let's pick back up on the story. Let's assume the governor appointed Cooper to his position. Now in NC that isn't how it works, but let's assume so for arguments sake. Now seeing that Nifong is out of control and Cooper refuses to do anything about it, the governor removes Cooper from his position, but does offer him a job in another department, which Cooper refuses. Has the governor broken any laws by firing Cooper for refusing to can Nifong?

Let's apply this scenario to Palin, who allegedly released Monegan for other reasons, but would have been well within her right and the law to fire him for refusing to fire someone that she thought was a threat to HER own safety and who was bullying people and breaking the law.

If Easley had done what I described here about Nifong, there would have been no violations of the law and the public would have cheered him. Unfortunately, Easley did not do any of this which only prolonged the Duke lacrosse case. Of course, Easley doesn't have the power to remove a District Attorney in NC, but Cooper did. If Cooper had fired Nifong at Easley's urging, who would have faulted Easley or Cooper? If Easley could have fired Cooper for not canning Nifong, who would have argued with that?

In fact, Easley did say publicly in a press conference that he wanted Nifong to go, and that if he had the powers to do so, he would have forced him out immediately.

So we see that the governor suggesting that someone should be fired isn't a crime and isn't new. Further, if the governor appoints someone who can fire someone who should be fired but isn't, it is within that governor's right to fire that person. Palin says that isn't even the reason that Monegan was terminated, and he admits that Palin offered him a job in another department, but he refused.

A lot of noise, nothing there. Hardly a disqualifier, but keep at it. If no laws were broken, and it doesn't appear that any have been, the public will side with Palin given the facts the same way the public rallied against Nifong. One big difference is that the trooper in the Palin matter ADMITTED that he had threatened to kill her parents, had tazed a 10 year old, shot a moose in violation of the law and other bad deeds (and STILL kept his job!). Nifong has yet to come clean. Sorry, but Palin will win this PR war and that is exactly what it is.

Investigate, fine. But to pretend that there isn't politics in play even before Palin was named VP is simply wrong. The ranking Democratic official in charge of the investigation saying "there could be an October Surprise" is dumb politics because it so blatantly gave away the Democrats' hand, yet there it is.

But of course I am probably wrong because we all know that Democrats would never push a "scandal" for political reasons. No it is only Republicans at fault for suggesting that the inquiry had become tainted due to politicization. Democrats simply never make any political calculations even when they essentially admit that they are. If there is partisanship here, it goes both ways. In the end, it won't matter because there is nothing there.

[justcorbly]

McCain knew Palin is under investigation for abuse of power. The result of that investigation will either be good news or bad news for his campaign. He has no way of knowing that result. I think selecting a VP candidate with such a question mark hanging over them shows bad political judgement.

If McCain or Palin or their campaign is moving to interfere in or thwart the investigation, then they should be held accountable.

As for whether or not Alaska Democrats are milking this for political gain, well, we've surely never heard of Republicans distorting the legislative or judicial processes for political gain, now have we?

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Can we go ahead and just impeach who ever wins in November and get it over with?

[Spag]

"If McCain or Palin or their campaign is moving to interfere in or thwart the investigation, then they should be held accountable."

So what should be done to Democrats who have already predetermined the outcome of this matter as Mr. French seems to have done with his remarks? And what should be done if it is discovered that the Obama campaign put pressure on the Alaskan Democrats to come up with a damning report or to time the release of the report right before the election?

That would be a different story, wouldn't it?

I have already admitted that both sides use these things for political gain. It's a shame- but not surprising- that you can't. Your side is never wrong about anything.

[Anthony]

The timing of the report was already set for the end of October before Palin was selected as McCain's running mate.

The joint legislative council was made up of both Dems and Repubs, and voted unanimously to call for the investigation.

That being said, French should stop talking - I agree that some of his statements seem biased, although I disagree that the "October surprise" statement is biased - as was pointed out, it's just an acknowledgment of the (predetermined) timing. However, even a biased statement from him does not mean that the investigation is biased, as French is not the one doing the actual investigating.

[Beelzebubba]

Power is abuse in the eyes of people not infatuated with it. Palin has become an authority on god, war and finance since she was discovered. If you are an advocate of her model or worldview, she is a bulletproof genius. If you are an advocate of Hillary's, Sheehan's or Putin's worldview, she's way off base. Power doesn't corrupt. It attracts the corruptible. "Politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds"~Henry Adams

[justcorbly]

Sam, I didn't offer an opinion about French's remark. You decided to expand the context of the discussion to include the gamesmanship of both parties, thus allowing you to say, in so many words, "Yah, well, what about you guys?"

Should French have used the "October surprise" phrase. No. It was a politically inept; it gave ammunition to the other side. Was it, as I said, accurate? Yes. An abuse of power finding against Palin 5 days before the election couldn't be anything else.

My larger point is that this is more evidence of McCain's lack of judgement, which you haven't addressed.

[Spag]

The premise of the thread was that there were political motivations going on by Republicans. I didn't expand the thread at all.

I find nothing wrong with McCain's judgment nor Palin's regarding this matter. Anyone he picked would be attacked for something, real or imagined.

Are you ready to talk about Joe Biden and Barack Obama's judgment or would that be changing the subject?

[justcorbly]

Obama did not pick a VP candidate who was under investigation for abuse of power. Palin was not placed under investigation because McCain put her on the ticket. I think knowingly selecting a running mate who is under investigation for abuse of power is evidence of questionable political judgment.

And, yes, talking about Obama's and Biden's judgment would not be helpful because their judgment has no bearing on Palin's. You can't wish away the Palin investigation by attacking Obama's judgment.

[Spag]

"I think knowingly selecting a running mate who is under investigation for abuse of power is evidence of questionable political judgment." Political judgment? I think the political payoff for McCain has been huge judging by his bump in the polls and the fact that Palin has higher favorables than anyone else in the race.

I can also see why to you talking about Obama and Biden's judgment would not be helpful. The MSM agrees. After all, who would want the same standards applied to Obama and Biden that are being applied to McCain and Palin. That might actually be fair and consistent and we can't have that now can we?

[justcorbly]

As you know, I'm rather partisan. I'm interested in keeping Republicans out of office, not being fair and consistent. I'm not as nice as Obama.

That said, you're studiously ignoring my point, which is that a finding of abuse of power against Palin days before the election would damage McCain's chances. You'd be saying the same thing if Biden was uner a similar investigation.

As for the MSM... I don't watch cable news. I'm not interested in the opinions of reporters or paid yakkers. But, I dont think the media is biased one way or the other. They all follow the money, not some ideology. Fox leans right and MSNBC leans left because that gives them an audience and an audience attracts advertising revenue.

If Palin actually has higher favorables than anyone in the race (I don't follow polls) that says something very depressing about this country. Palin wants to build and live in an ideologically driven country in which I'd be unwelcome, uncomfortable, and angry. Tens of millions of Americans agree with me. Sarah Palin may excite right-wingers who think America is God's gift to Christian extremists to do with as they wish, but she, and they, are the biggest internal threat to the Constitution and our freedoms since the Confederacy.

[justcorbly]

Make that internal and external threat. Al-Qaida isn't capable of taking away my rights. People like Palin are, and they want to.

[Dave Dobson]

What the Democrats said or didn't say has no bearing on the facts of the case. Palin and McCain are trying to avoid having the facts come out. Palin has already lied in this case to protect herself. Unless you buy her story that she was ignorant of the whole thing, and it was overzealous employees who were lying. If that's the case, then she should welcome having the facts come out, since it looks pretty bad as of now.

[Thomas]

Way late to the party, but I have to comment on Spag's Easley/Cooper/Nifong example. If one of those innocent people Nifong was prosecuting was named Easley, then yeah, the Gov would be WAY out of bounds to call Cooper and ask that Nifong be removed.

[observer]

Get the inside story on Sarah Palin at this blog by an Alaskan:

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/