Sheagleton!

Related stories this morning reveal that this pattern started when she was major of Wasilla.

I never thought of Alaska as a swamp, but now...

mayor not major

Why is the google image of Wasilla Alaska pixillated ala Dick Cheney's place? What are they hiding and who made them do it?
Jes Askin'

Link: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

The key point to keep bringing up with troopergate is the denial.

The GOP is going to try to spin this that the ex-brother-in-law was a dangerous and crooked cop, but that a corrupt police force wouldn't discipline one of their own, so she started firing from the top down to clean house. This fits with the reformist meme.

HOWEVER, here's the key, if that was true, why did she not say that from the beginning? Instead, she denied having done anything to pressure the top guy to fire the brother in law. She denied that the firing was related to this issue.

SO WHICH IS IT? Is it a defensible attempt to break down the blue wall of silence (why does she hate cops so much?) or is it something to deny and pretend you weren't involved in.

Almost more maddening than the rush to pick her is the reaction of the conservative press and pundits to the drip-drip of bad news. Or should I say good news? Surf around the net or watch a little television and you’re greeted with observers willing to make the case every nutty revelation is actually a net plus for McCain. Palin could have a bank robbery conviction surface and her ability to personally understand and empathize with the mindset of a desperate felon would be touted as valuable to her VP duties.

Remember, kids, it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up...

Steve, you misspelled state as stage.

Also, aren't these the things that are hallmark of what Republicans want?

I understand her main defense is "it depends on what the meaning of 'pressure' is." She acknowledges multiple contacts from her staff, but says the guy was wrong to think he was being pressured. Which begs the question, then why was he fired?

Also, I understand the fellow she replaced him with had to be canned after 2 weeks because of a prior sexual harrassment issue. Sounds like failure to vet appointees is another characteristic she has in common with her new "soul mate", John McCain. (This is the term used on MSNBC this morning by campaign spokesperson Nicole Wallace. Am I the only one that finds this creepy?)

This whole Palin thing feels like we were watching what we thought would be an election, but it turned out to be the Jerry Springer show.

As Crissa has astutely alluded above, Sarah Palin would fit right in with, say, the current Bush administration. Vendettas inspired by personal fury (Valerie Plame), firing of other public officials for refusing to toe the party line (Richard Clarke, and several others including a bunch of lawyers), stonewalling and lying until it becomes expected reaction to any question (incidents and individuals too numerous to mention). I don't know if I'd be too quick to suggest she wasn't vetted - perhaps John McCain saw enough in their brief meeting to know she was just like Cheney in every respect but age and appearance.

Then again, as I mentioned earlier; a McCain administration would be nothing like a Bush administration. David Brooks says so, and if that's not good enough for you, so does Rush Limbaugh.

For a party that seems to think that politics and governing are nothing more than narrative and story-telling, Republicans seemed surprisingly blind to the ironic storyline of selecting someone under investigation for abuse of power as a replacement to Dick Cheney.

The reason the GOP dispatched lawyers up to AK is not to vet Palin after the fact but to lay the groundwork for fighting the investigation tooth and nail. They will do exactly what the GOP always does in these situations: attack, attack, attack. They are digging up dirt on Palin's opponents, both GOP and Dem, and are devising strategies to gum up and delay the investigation until well after election day. Expect the GOP operatives to start issuing a blizzard of ridiculous charges, lies, and innuendos to the press, which will be duly regurgitated by the MSM without analysis or thought. As is always the case, the Dems will be caught flat-footed and unprepared, and any Dem even tangentially related to the case will spend all their time refuting one silly charge after another.

As for the idea that Palin will be dumped, that's as likely to happen as FoxNews endorsing Obama. McCain didn't bring in the guy who smeared him in 2000 to help him dump Palin; he brought him in to prep Palin to attack Biden and Obama.

There's plenty enough RIGHT NOW for the Obama "brain trust" to be running ads attacking Palin on the issues (NOT her family stuff); NOW is the time to define her to the voters. Each day that goes by without a coherent advertising response from the Obama/Biden ticket is a giant lost opportunity to drive the debate.

Very soon Palin and the rest of the GOP machine will go on the offensive on her behalf. If past patterns hold, the Dems, having squandered a perfect opportunity to initiate the debate themselves, will be in their old familiar position of playing defense.

Anyone who uses current polling data to justify more Dem passivity is making a serious mistake. You cannot assume the snake is dead until you cut the head off.

She's going for the wrong job -- she should be in Bush's Justice Department.

It looks like McCain and Palin are trying very hard to make Bush/Cheney look competent.

Maybe he picked her to placate the base, knowing she would flame out so he could get his first pick... LIEBERMAN.

But old cranks who yell at the clouds usually aren't clever enough to pull bankshots like that.

This is going from Eagleton/Miers to Bernard Kerik territory. Are we going to find a Judith Regan book deal next?

This morning (Tuesday) her new attorney is cranking up the volume, insisting that the investigation is a partisan "witch hunt" (his words) and suggesting that her new campaign schedule will prevent her from being deposed in the case, even though the investigator in Alaska has said he'll send a team anywhere in the country she needs to meet. Sure sounds like they'e ramping up to stonewall this thing through the election, which is exactly the tactic the current administration has taken in rebuffing multiple inquiries in Washington.

Will it work? I fear that it will -- how long have he been waiting to hear from Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, again?

"how long have he been waiting to hear from Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, again?"

You know, I was just thinking it was time for Henry Waxman to issue another sternly-worded letter expressing how miffed he is that the GOP is continuing to ignore him. There's no reason he can't write it from his vacation home. After that John Conyers can issue another sternly-worded threat to actually do something while frantically hoping something else comes along to distract people.

It won't work in a campaign because the optics are terrible. Plus the special prosecutor seems to have plenty to work with even without her cooperation.

Sounds like failure to vet appointees is another characteristic she has in common with her new "soul mate", John McCain. (This is the term used on MSNBC this morning by campaign spokesperson Nicole Wallace. Am I the only one that finds this creepy?)

With apologies to Sam & Dave:

"Now grab the rope
and I'll hang you with it,
Dash your hopes
and sink the GOP ticket
YEAH, yeah, YEAH, yeah
I'm a Soulmate..."

"The GOP is going to try to spin this that the ex-brother-in-law was a dangerous and crooked cop"

I am hardly GOP, but find the the fact that the ex-brother-in-law tasered his 10-year-old step son to be dangerous. That is not in disupute.

I am hardly GOP, but find the the fact that the ex-brother-in-law tasered his 10-year-old step son to be dangerous. That is not in disupute.

This issue isn't whether the ex-brother-in-law should have been fired. The issue is whether his superior should have been fired for not responding to pressure from Governor Palin.

I will agree that tasering a 10-year-old is an even more egregious case of abuse of power. However, Palin's ex-brother-in-law is not on McCain's ticket.

As several others have noted here and elsewhere, the real agenda of this lawyering-up is to obstruct the investigation and delay the results until after November 2. It may work, if she's not thrown overboard by McSame before then.

I don't know whether cutting her or keeping her would be best politically, in terms of campaigning anyways.

In the event she is removed or resigns, I would bet the same talking heads who've trotted out in support of her - floating ridiculous reasonings for her selection and testifying to her credentials - are going to be right back out there for the next guy or gal.

The likes of Lindsey Graham are amazing. I am unable to imagine the district in which he lives. Who are the people that continue to elect this stooge?

What's wrong with Tasering a 10 year old? That's mild compared to bombing them to smithereens as the U.S. does in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kids over there eat Tasers for lunch. And they're happy they're on the menu!

"[W]hen was the last time a candidate for national office had to hire a lawyer, during the campaign, to deal with an ongoing scandal?"

Geraldine Ferraro (1984) over her husband's questionable business dealings? (Presumably "during the campaign" disqualifies George W. Bush lawyering up for the 2000 Florida recount.)