Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 30, 2008

THE CRIME AND THE COVER-UP.... At her kickoff event in Ohio yesterday, Sarah Palin boasted about having rejected congressional funds for the infamous "bridge to nowhere." Soon after, we realized that Palin wasn't telling the truth about one of her signature issues, on her very first day as a candidate for national office.

Now, some might say this is excusable, because Palin's remarks were written by McCain campaign aides, and the McCain campaign barely knows who Palin is. That's probably true.

But lying about an alleged abuse of power is far more serious.

Remember the expression, the cover-up is worse than the crime? It's plainly true in the case of Palin firing Alaska Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan. Take a look at this video, from the ABC affiliate in Alaska, and notice that Palin seems to have been caught, rather blatantly, misusing her power and then lying about it.

While we're at it, read this rather extraordinary report from the Washington Post about just how embarrassing this scandal is for Palin.

For that matter, let's not forget that Palin fired the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner for the most dubious of reasons, and then replaced him with a guy facing a credible sexual harassment accusation, and who was out of the job two weeks later. What a great example of sound judgment.

As part of the investigation, Palin will have to leave the campaign trail to be deposed soon, the results of an investigation from the legislature into the controversy is due shortly before the election, and the word "impeachment" has been thrown around more the once.

Josh Marshall added, "Using the power of the government to settle scores with estranged relatives or associates is far from unprecedented.... But I doubt very much that they were prepared for the heat of full bore national media scrutiny on this one. And in this case you not only the underlying act, which is sleazy, but the high probability that Palin is lying about her role."

Did John McCain even ask about any of this? Does he have any idea what it looks like? Why would he pick a running mate in the middle of an ethics scandal in which there's strong evidence that the governor told obvious untruths?

I'm not making any predictions here, but I can't help but wonder if Palin will still be on the Republican ticket by the time Election Day comes in November.

Steve Benen 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Whenever someone pointed out that it was insane to impeach over sex Republicans would yell, "It's no the sex, it's the lying!" They've said the same thing about Edwards lately. Chickens are coming home to roost. . .

Posted by: emmie on August 30, 2008 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

This has "Rovian" fingerprints all over it. She's eminently unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

The McCain campaign expects to dump her (and I bet she's too out of the loop to realize it.)

All they cared about was a "big splash" to get the media off Obama's "big night" and a fabulous speech.

They'll find another winger between the convention and the election.

Posted by: Richard on August 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

I love the poll results at the end.

Steve - do you have any theories as to why the GOP machine picked her while all this was going on? Arrogance? Stupidity? Or was having someone for the Christian right more important than anything else?

Posted by: Sam Mamudi on August 30, 2008 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

It's really baffling. I started hearing the Palin rumors a month or so, and I found about the scandal within 10 minutes. Apparently McCain doesn't even have a Google tech on his staff.

Supposedly this is how it happened. (Site here.) Palin was just barely inaugurated as governor when a college-sophomore Young Republican type made "Draft Sarah Palin" his project. (It almost seems like that "Pet Rock" marketing gimmick from awhile back -- a college kid's marketing experiment).

Harvard PhD and wise man Bill Kristol picked it up, an voila!

America's become a clown show, except with nuclear weapons.

Posted by: John Emerson on August 30, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Levitra has signed up McCain for commercials to appear in December 2008.

Posted by: gregor on August 30, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Unintentionally (I hope) funniest comment on the whole thing; John Dickerson in Slate:

"That (McCain) picked a woman he doesn't know well and who has little experience suggests he continues to progress as a pragmatic political realist."

Posted by: ericfree on August 30, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with Richard--probably the whole thing will lead to an announcement (made in tones of deep regret) that Palin must reluctantly step aside for the good of America, so that the focus is not on her but on the very real and serious problems facing the nation. This tribute to the good of the country having been made, McCain will name a new running mate, garner another round of exclusive media attention, and ride the resulting wave of relief and "excitement" into the White House. Crafty warrior! Palin is both Helen of Troy AND the Trojan horse. I wonder if McCain was present when the original horse was constructed.

Posted by: Winslow on August 30, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

When I heard about her nomination, Harriet Miers was the first thing that came to my mind. I fully expect her to be dumped before October, and a more "moderate" replacement to take her place.

Posted by: anon on August 30, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

then replaced him with a guy facing a credible sexual harassment accusation

And she knew about the complaint before appointing him.

some might say this is excusable, because Palin's remarks were written by McCain campaign aides, and the McCain campaign barely knows who Palin is. That's probably true.

Are you kidding? As SJRSM pointed out, she didn't even need a teleprompter. You can't argue that she didn't know it was a lie, and it's just as inexcusable for McCain's aides to write it. Just as it is inexcusable for Bush to make the "sixteen word" argument about African uranium. regardless of who wrote that SOTU address.

Posted by: on August 30, 2008 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing that makes sense in choosing Palin is ENERGY.

That is what McCain will emphasize. Drill now or risk being unpatriotic.

Yes, Palin's also got a name in the abortion debate (against).

So I see abortion and ENERGY being the 2 planks of McCain's platform.

Yeah there's Iraq and Healthcare and the economy, but John must think american voters are dumb enuf* to focus on only energy and abortion come November!

*(the way I think he spells it!)

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on August 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Harriet Miers would have been a better-qualified pick.

Posted by: SqueakyRat on August 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

You write: "Now, some might say this (lying about the "bridge to nowhere") is excusable, because Palin's remarks were written by McCain campaign aides, and the McCain campaign barely knows who Palin is. That's probably true."

WTF? I know, I know -- you are getting to a more serioius lie. But there is no excuse for this lie. She presumably read "her" remarks before delivering them. She could have corrected the "McCain campaign aides." She is an adult. She spoke these words loud and proud (just as confidently, by the way, as Hillary told us about being under sniper fire). She said this, and all the good Republicans in attendance cheered. Do not make any excuses for her. She chose to lie about a famous and important point during her moment of introduction to the nation. No excuses!

Posted by: CMcC on August 30, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Governor and Mr. Sarah Palin are starting to look like they'd be better suited for the Jerry Springer show than on the GOP presidential ticket.

Why do I expect some really weird shit to be revealed about these two?

Posted by: Stranger on August 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

troopergate sure seems tailor made to tie palin and mccain to bush policies and conduct. Firing a fairly upstanding government employee for failure to do the political dirtywork of the executive branch? Sounds like the DOJ attorney firings to me. Just more of the same just different names.

Posted by: bubba on August 30, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Yea, when I heard about Palin I figured McCain's crack research and vetting team did their usual bang up job a la Parsley and Hagee and the no lobbyists work for McCain, except for the lobbyists who actually work for the campaign. This stinks of Rove and the Religious Right, just as the platform does.

Posted by: Dee Loralei on August 30, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

I've had the same thought -- that they may end up having to replace her if the obstacles become too numerous and if the outrage at her choosing really festers (the list of people who are pissed seems to be pretty lengthy). Not sure how all those bruised feelings get mended -- and if they don't the unintended consequences could by myriad for the McCain campaign.

I could see a significant number of GOP women, for ex, jumping to Obama based on feeling insulted that such an unqualified women was given this honor rather than numerous highly qualified and tested GOP women elected officials who've given so many years to the party. Olympia Snowe, Kay Baily Hutchison, Susan Collins, Elizabeth Dole, etc. -- maybe they pull a Jim Leach and give McCain the public "screw you." Or maybe they sit on their hands and undermine the ticket quietly.

And then who knows what the wrath of Pawlenty and Romney will end up looking like several weeks from now. They don't seem to be acquiescing quietly and playing the good soldier role; doesn't bode well.

McCain has severely increased his enemies list in his own party with this pick. We'll have to wait and see if she survives the klieg lights. From what I've seen so far, I would put good money on a big flameout. She is simply not ready for primetime on a scale that is really stunning.

And can I just say that as a woman myself it is really insulting to have the first woman on a GOP ticket be such a lightweight? (Not that the GOP cares about women, I realize.) Say what you will about today's Geraldine Ferraro (and I now really can't stand her), but in 1984 at least she had some national experience and a world view that went beyond her own little corner of the world -- and she really got the significance & powerful symbolism of her selection -- and she inspired a lot of women (like me) who came of age politically at that time. Palin seems pretty clueless even on this aspect, which must really be driving all those qualified GOP women round the bend. It would me, if I were in their shoes. I feel really bad for them.

Posted by: Amanda on August 30, 2008 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

regarding drilling, Gustav just may speak loudly and clearly on hat issue, with more force and authority than mccain or palin ever could.

Posted by: bubba on August 30, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

McCain will name a new running mate, garner another round of exclusive media attention, and ride the resulting wave of relief and "excitement" into the White House.

No. Blowing his first major executive decision simply makes McCain look like a schmuck. Being forced to replace your VP candidate is a disaster. Ask George McGovern. (And bear in mind that Eagleton was not a tenth of the embarrassing pick that Palin is.)

Posted by: jimBOB on August 30, 2008 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

You write: "Take a look at this video, from the ABC affiliate in Alaska, and notice that Palin seems to have been caught, rather blatantly, misusing her power and then lying about it."

She's like Monica Goodling without the blond hair and the educational qualifications.

You continue: "For that matter, let's not forget that Palin fired the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner for the most dubious of reasons, and then replaced him with a guy facing a credible sexual harassment accusation, and who was out of the job two weeks later. What a great example of sound judgment."

Two questions: Will Palin last two weeks? Will McCain?

Posted by: CMcC on August 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

You guys are walking staight into the sucker punch the Repubs want you to -- denouncing a woman for being an apostate from the church of PC. Who's "scandal" is going to play better with the public, trying to get rid of a corrupt cop that used a tazer on his 11 year old stepson, or Tony Resco buying Obama's house and getting $14 million in return? We don't need to go there. I remember in the last election the Repubs tried very hard to highlight minorities at their convention, and some on our side denounced it as a minstrel show. This is the kind of ad hominum attack that really turns off independents; it's not productive and it's not necessary. Please let's change the subject.

Posted by: loki on August 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

I still think the main problem is showing McCain's crassness and poor judgment in picking someone as an electoral triangulation ploy with little regard for the good of the nation (sure, VPs get picked to help carry states etc, but the understanding is: from a field of clearly qualified prospects, you pick one that can help you win the election - that's OK. So we might wince if McCain had picked Kay B. Hutchison, but would have little to complain about. BTW, why didn't he?)

However, Obama has to be careful too about things like Willaim Ayers. He can say, he thought Ayers had moved beyond the radical stuff and didn't realize Ayers would apparently still approve of what he did in the past. OTOH, someone out there (not the Ticket of course) can remind voters, that John McCain thought nothing of marrying a woman who once stole narcotics, and of course the affair issues that the SCLM seem so uninterested in.

Posted by: Neil Bee on August 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

She will not be deposed, and the results of the investigation will not come out before the election. Any talk of a deposition and completing the investigation by November was before the VP selection. It will be postponed.

Posted by: Jim on August 30, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

When I first heard of this "troopergate" scandal yesterday, I didn't give it much attention. It seemed like the same old partisan bickering that goes on everywhere. But after watching the video embedded above, it seems really amazing that Team McCain went for this pick. Is there a grand strategy here? No, stupidity is sufficient to explain it all.

Republicans have been making fun of George McGovern ever since 1972 for his disastrous VP pick of Thomas Eagleton, who had a history of depression. Eagleton was undoubtedly in better mental health in 1972 than John McCain is today.

I don't expect McCain to throw Palin under the bus. The wingnuts are delighted with her pick (or say they are), and Republicans don't ever admit their mistakes.

Pass the popcorn.

orange

Posted by: OkieFromMuskogee on August 30, 2008 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

The idea of Sara Palin as McSenile's running mate just makes me shiver with delight. Good times!

Posted by: Helena Montana on August 30, 2008 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

oooh, thanks for your concern, Loki.

Posted by: SqueakyRat on August 30, 2008 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

i couldn't disagree more, loki.

the polling in 2006 showed that the big issue was corruption. it was Foley, Duke Cunningham, Abramoff -- polls showed this was an even bigger issue than Iraq -- that were the driver.

Palin being under active investigation and the lying about the Bridge etc. provide a door to bring up Keating Five, and tie this ticket back to the broader damage to the Republican brand -- which should help move Obama closer to the generic ballot numbers.

"The American people are tired of a government where good, hard-working public servants are fired for unlawful, political reasons [show headline clips from US Attorney scandal], tired of the Republican record of scandal and not telling the truth [clips from the Abramoff scandal, the WMD lies, AND from the Stevens/Young scandals showing them from Alaska, etc], tired of Republicans who don't care about government undermining the public good by appointing unqualified, inexperienced friends to important positions [video of the "heckuva job Brownie!" and the devesatated New Orleans]. Now, just a heartbeat away from the Presidency, John McCain [clips from Keating Five headlines] gives us more of the same. [the video above, clips about Palin's scandal and the Bridge lie]. We don't need four more years like the last eight. Exaggerating about Republican Senator Stevens' Bridge to Nowhere? Firing public servants because they stand up for the law? Appointing people facing known sexual harassment complaints? This isn't change we can believe in. Vote Obama.Biden, for good judgment, experience to lead, and real change."

Posted by: zeitgeist on August 30, 2008 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing that makes sense in choosing Palin is ENERGY.

Are you suggesting that McCain will kill and eat Sarah Palin so that he can assume her powers?

Me too.

Posted by: Stephen on August 30, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

While you're looking into this, you might want to check out the "First Dude" too. Apparently, he's sitting in on the Governor's meetings, and receiving copies of emails, although he is not a government employee. They have already used the executive privilege canard to refuse to release emails. He did quit his job with BP, though.

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/shadow_governor

Posted by: anon, too on August 30, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

My husband and I watched the viddy Steve linked to and dang, that woman is one lousy liar. Like, stinko. The details about the Moneghan mess in the WashPost article were nice. Tacky, small town kitsch, with a family feud and Jerry Springer thrown in. As I read about Sarah dispatching Todd to bring the dossier to a meeting w/Moneghan, I thought, wait, this scheme and these types seems sort of familiar... A-ha-I know! John McCain has nominated Tonya Harding for Vice President.

Posted by: Drits'n'Dravy on August 30, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Those people got exposed by the local news. The national press is going to skin them alive.

Posted by: TR on August 30, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Why would he pick a running mate in the middle of an ethics scandal in which there's strong evidence that the governor told obvious untruths?

Because he made a deal with Ted Stevens? "You make Palin's problem go away, and I'll make your problem go away."

Posted by: pedestrian on August 30, 2008 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Election? I'm not sure she's intended to last through the convention.

Posted by: cookie on August 30, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

loki: Tony Resco buying Obama's house and getting $14 million in return

1. Not even close to true.

2. You're an idiot.

Posted by: pedestrian on August 30, 2008 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

In addition to the ethics issues mentioned here, there is also a pending ethics complaint against Palin for interfering in the civil service process to get a friend and donor hired into a civil service position in Alaska state government, backed by what appears to be a pretty clear paper trail.

But she's not a footsoldier like Goodling, more like an aspiring (but as yet more clumsy) Cheney.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 30, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK
I'm not making any predictions here, but I can't help but wonder if Palin will still be on the Republican ticket by the time Election Day comes in November.

If the Democrats are even half on the ball, it won't matter, because they'll use her selection to nail McCain on judgement, so that she's a lead weight around the campaign if he keeps her, and if he dumps her he further validates the attack on his judgement.

Its not going to be hard to make the case that no one who would choose her, knowing what is public knowledge and would have been revealed by even casual inquiry, has anything remotely like the judgement to be President of the United States.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 30, 2008 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, guys. You are the ones jumping the shark. Read the story and don't get too excited by the wishful thinking versions. You're quoting people she defeated.

On the other hand, why am I encouraging you to learn something ? Keep it up.

Posted by: Mike K on August 30, 2008 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think we need to be careful. If we alienate Alaska we may have trouble securing her oil interests and that would be trouble for American oil independence.

Posted by: Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s on August 30, 2008 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

The more we know the worse it is, for Palin anyway. There are so many other RSR women who would have been just as Rovian (Dole, Snowe, KB Hutchinson, among many others) in their outlook but with better stature. Even the AK GOP doesn't know who she is, or like her. Even Michelle Bachmann or Mean Jean would have made more sense for name recognition alone. Palin's pursuit for various reasons of AK politicos makes me question the adherence to Reagan's 11th Commandment, which is not permissible for Rove.

However, all of this tells me that what Rove is really up to here is a Manchurian candidate scenario, since we have the following:

1. McSame will probably drop out for health reasons. The cancer nose job a month or so ago sets this line up well.
2. Palin, because of her inexperience and knowing she won't have the gravitas to be pushy [something the ladies mentioned above would probably not allow, btw, which may explain Palin's choice], will be sidestepped. Whether this happens before the convention or after depends upon GOP party rules about the candidates once formally nominated. Unless something specifically prohibits this, I would bet for after the convention to minimize D responses.
3. As I noted before, Bu$hCo needs to prevent any investigation/prosecution, so there can be no Obama administration. Therefore it will be someone who is loyal and can be controlled. My guess here is Petraeus / Condi ticket, unless Darth Cheney figures out how to cancel the election for "security" reasons. Never mind we've held elections during shooting wars on our territory before.

This is not over yet by a long shot, since the GOP needs to get someone who can energize the fundies as well as be "reliable". The floating idea of a delay (which allows McSame to spend money freely, as well) will permit the ManCan to stay under the radar just a little longer. Of course the Twins will be pissed off because they won't be able to use the Metrodome, nor will the Vikes or the Gophers.

Posted by: rugger0 on August 30, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

oh Mike K, have you paid no attention to the tactics your own Rovian campaigns have introduced to the body politic?

no one in American knows Palin; they know even less that these Republicans from Alaska are people she defeated.

So when we tell America that people from her own party and her own state, people who know her much better than the mass of Americans who have no idea who she is or why she was picked, slam on her (a) they will believe it, and (b) if Palin wants to explain why Alaska Republicans should be discounted about an Alaska Republican, she can waste several weeks worth of news cycles - there are only 60-some to go - on it. Either way we win.

Posted by: zeitgeist on August 30, 2008 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

tom nicholson: The only thing that makes sense in choosing Palin is ENERGY.

That is what McCain will emphasize. Drill now or risk being unpatriotic.


.
GOP platform backs off Arctic oil to help McCain - AP 8/27/08


Posted by: mr. irony on August 30, 2008 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK


mike k: You are the ones jumping the shark.


"Governor Palin... is ready to be president." - John McCain statement 8/29/08

lol.....

Posted by: mr. irony on August 30, 2008 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I heard 'troopergate' come up twice on t.v. yesterday (on MSNBC and on NBC)once with Andrea Mitchell and once with Rachel Maddow and I wonder if it really is going to hamper Palin very much. Maybe the tv pundits don't know too much about it yet, but Mitchell said that 'everyone' would understand and even Rachel Maddow said that as far as she knew it was perfectly understandable that Palin had wanted to fire her ex-brother-in-law who had abused her sister, tazered her nephew and threatened her dad. Our Rachel said nothing about the abuse of power, perjury, etc. and even said that she [Maddow] would want to rip the SOB's head off.

If Maddow is so easily suckered into an emotional rather than a legal response, how do you think the spin will work on most Americans who get their news from other sources? I'm not sure Americans, most of whom don't care about the fact that our country tortures people [but only 'bad' people!], really care about process, legality and the abuse of power, esp. of having to care about these things gets in the way of their emotional release!!

Posted by: clarice on August 30, 2008 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

I decided two things this morning after a good night's sleep: if anything could make me loath McCain more (a tall order) the choice of Palin is it -- this woefully untried, uninformed, intellectually deprived person a heartbeat away? What more does anyone need to know he doesn't give a rat's ass for the United States or its future?; and, as others including brilliant Steve suggest, she'll be off loaded. My bet: there will be a floor flight and the Republicans, benighted though they may be, will nominate someone else.

Posted by: on August 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

I decided two things this morning after a good night's sleep: if anything could make me loath McCain more (a tall order) the choice of Palin is it -- this woefully untried, uninformed, intellectually deprived person a heartbeat away? What more does anyone need to know he doesn't give a rat's ass for the United States or its future?; and, as others including brilliant Steve suggest, she'll be off loaded. My bet: there will be a floor flight and the Republicans, benighted though they may be, will nominate someone else.

Posted by: SF on August 30, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

This is the kind of ad hominum attack that really turns off independents; it's not productive and it's not necessary. Please let's change the subject.
Posted by: loki

You're quoting people she defeated. On the other hand, why am I encouraging you to learn something ? Keep it up.
Posted by: Mike K

I think we need to be careful. If we alienate Alaska we may have trouble securing her oil interests and that would be trouble for American oil independence.
Posted by: Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s

Thanks for your concern, trolls.

Posted by: on August 30, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

if McCain/Palin wins, I will surely have a nighty cycnical take on it.

for generations, America was seen as uniquely meritocratic. From the time the trusts were busted and the 1930s proved how shortsighted were the excesses of the 1920s, as everyone pitched in for hte war effort, GIs came hime and through the GI bill created a new middle class, as women and minorities obtained expanded civil and civic rights, the oeprative theme was that in America, anyone could succeed and that being the best and brightest, proving your merit, got you farther than being rich or having the right last name. You didn't have to be a Rockefeller or Carnegie; there were other ways - primarily education in our growing network of strong colleges and universities - to show your merit.

Until Nixon came along and cynically worked to turn intelligence into a negative and anti-intellectualism into a virtue (not unlike how the pre-Reformation Church-State resisted vernacular texts because an uninformed populace was more malleable at the hands of rulers). The next step back was meritless dynasy - the Bushes, the latter with his legacy admissions and gentleman's C average.

Now as Obama is poised to make the ultimate proof of the "anyone can do it" meritocratic principle - raised without much means by a single Mom, worked his way up and through Harvard Law (including Law Review and as Tribe's RA) and teaching Con Law at one of the most renowned schools (U Chicago), he could be the first non-white President not because of, but in spite of, his skin.

And the choice will be Obama versus McCain (class rank at Annapolis: 894 of 899) and Palin (BA in Communication Studies, from the prestigious U. of Idaho).

This could well be the ultimate demonstration that the public - even as the world and the economy get increasingly complex - truly does want someone dumb as the average guy next door instead of someone extraordinary at the helm.

and the downfall of a once great country would proceed apace.

Posted by: zeitgeist on August 30, 2008 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Wonder how Palin is going to respond to the National press on this matter?

Posted by: Scott F. on August 30, 2008 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

1) I'm not a troll.

2) My analysis of the Resko vs. troopergate memes was not supposed to be factually accurate - it was supposed to reflect the shorthand that will be passed around by the low motivation voters out there.

3) I agree corruption has been a great tool against the Repubs - but Palin is being attacked by the establishment in Alaska for taking on the company town atmosphere and our focus on these issues are playing to her/McCain's strengths, that's why I'm asking our team to cool it.

Posted by: loki on August 30, 2008 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Read the FACTS people.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/08/29/palins-troopergate-beating-msm-distortions-to-the-truth/

Posted by: Rj on August 30, 2008 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Please, please, keep the details of Palin's abuse of power under the radar until she is officially nominated by the Republicans (Wednesday?). Then let the games begin.

Posted by: xpatriate on August 30, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

[...] Palin fired the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner for the most dubious of reasons, and then replaced him with a guy facing a credible sexual harassment accusation [...] -- PA

Yeah, but he wasn't harassing her family, so that's OK.

Posted by: exlibra on August 30, 2008 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

I've decided that any group as brilliant as you folks are don't need to be reminded of reality. When Kevin ran this blog, I predicted a number of events, especially in Iraq, that turned out to be true. You never noticed and continued to delude yourselves that anyone who disagreed with you is a troll. So be it. Since Kevin left you have become another Kos and are even more deeply retreated into your orifices than before. It's too bad that discussions across differences aren't tolerated by the left but, after all, you are the people trying to prosecute independent groups that run TV ads. I hope November 4 isn't too big a shock to your systems.

Posted by: Mike K on August 30, 2008 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

It's not Palin who will be dropped from the ticket. It's McCain; he's clearly lost his marbles. Gustav will be a good excuse to delay the convention. Get ready for Mittens.

Posted by: bob on August 30, 2008 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

John Emerson beat me to it. Did they even GOOGLE this woman? Jeebus Crike on a corncake.

Posted by: CalGal on August 30, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

A few points for the people (here and in the press) who are trying to defend Palin on the 'troopergate' scandal.

1) She didn't fire her ex-brother in-law from his position as a state trooper, she doesn't have the authority to do that.

2) her husband and aides made multiple attempts to pressure the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner to fire the brother in-law.

3) when he didn't, she fired the commissioner.

4) she then denied that was why he was fired or that she or any of her aides pressured him to fire her brother in-law.

5) but then it comes out that one of her top aides was recorded doing so, and confirmed that her husband had met with the commisioner in her office at the time the commissioner said the husband had pressured him to fire the trooper.

6) Palin's sister and her ex were in a bitter divorce and custody dispute, all kinds of accusations get made under such circumstances and several of the ones made against him were years old or patently ridiculous (i.e. he shot shot a moose without a permit, but don't mention he was with Palin's father at the time).

7) even if the ex-brother in-law actually was scum, using the power of the governor's office to try to get him fired after the state patrol had investigated and taken what they consider appropriate action is a bit dodgy.

8) and does not in any way justify firing the Public Safety Commissioner for not going along.

9) or lying about it to the Alaskan public and state legislature as she appears to have.

Posted by: tanstaafl on August 30, 2008 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

As a woman, I'm insulted by McCain's choice. Republican train of thought: "Let's pick a woman, (any will do), so that our ticket will be historic, too!" Who are they kidding??!!! She is supremely unqualified, IMHO. And, if they thought they were going to pick up the Hillary voters, then why would they pick a far right, evangelical, anti-abortionist?

Posted by: Christa on August 31, 2008 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Palin just had a baby with Downs syndrome. I predict she decides to stay closer to home for the sake of the baby and will withdraw herself from nomination. In the meantime John McCain looks like a champion of equal rights as well as the pro-life position.

Posted by: Leslie on August 31, 2008 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

I usually don't commonly post on many another Blogs, still I just has to say thank you for The Washington Monthly... keep up the amazing work. Ok regrettably its time to get to school.

Posted by: como superar una ruptura amorosa on January 23, 2011 at 4:12 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly