Blatant lies

So, you don't think that using a Taser on his stepson, illegally shooting a moose, and accusations of driving drunk are incidents that call into question whether a guy should be able to retain his badge?

You need to get a life.

 

(a) this is Alaska, where it is said about men that "the odds are good, but the goods are odd." It sounds ridiculous, but Alaskans can't be held to the same standards as people in the rest of the country. They just think differently and act differently.

(b) the question is whether she has exceeded her authority. She doesn't have hiring or firing authority over individual police officers.

(c) it seems like the bigger issue is whether her husband was given space in the governor's office and allowed to pursue this issue, which would constitute a clear breach of protocol and a blurring of public/private activity. Remember, if there is going to be even an APPEARANCE of impropriety, a public servant should (and often must) recuse him or herself.

 

Probably, but this may have been the first time that she was in a position to try and do something about it. Again, I don't want to get into being the defender of Sarah Palin (primarily because I think she was a horrible choice by McCain), but I do know that when you make assumptions about people's motives, you're often wrong.

 

Actually, that's not the question. She didn't fire the police officer. She fired his boss, primarily because he didn't follow her directives relating to federal funding policies.

I know very little to about what her husband may have done in this incident, so I'm not going to comment.

 

While we're looking at editorials dealing with ethics issues, this one from the Chicago Tribune raises several interesting questions, including:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass-0510,0,7245642.column

Is it that Palin's transgressions were of greater import than Obama's, or does the fact that the Democrats who brought the investigation had political motivations to do so, as did the Democrats in Illinois who chose not to bring an investigation against Obama?

 

Why must a discussion about Palin or McCain always devolve into bashing Obama? Why is it responsive to say, "well, we're no worse than the other guy?" Shouldn't the relevant question be whether ANY candidate is ethical, and their government acts open and transparent? When I read a response trying to change the issue to the other candidate, it is obvious to me that there IS no defense. If you want to discuss Obama's dealings, open another thread--or contribute to the hundred or so that have already been created.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of this tactic. It is embarassing, and a little sad.

 

What e_blazer is ignoring (I do appreciate you offering the lone dissenting opinion in this thread) is that the investigator said she acted unethically and then Palin turned around and said she didn't. Like, did she read the report? Maybe if the press were allowed to ask her questions, we'd get some answers as to why she would say such a thing when she was FOUND to have acted unethically.

We can argue about ethics all day, but it doesn't excuse what the investigator found and the subsequent comments by Palin.

 

You are absolutely correct that the question should be whether ANY candidate is ethical. Get back to me when you find one who has never used his or her office for some minor personal gain, or perhaps to benefit a friend or supporter or even to the disadvantage of an opponent. Candidates for office are human beings and we all make mistakes. Perhaps Palin's motives were pure revenge. Perhaps they were based upon her having a close personal understanding of what this trooper was like and wanting him removed from a position that demands sound judgment. None of us will ever know with certainty.

What is embarassing and a little sad, IMHO, is expressing indignation over Palin's transgressions, to whatever extent they are such, while being willing to ignore the flaws of the candidate that you support for president. Do two wrongs make a right? Obviously not, but hypocrisy isn't pretty either.

 

That's a valid point, hoojacks, but politicians spin things everytime they open their mouths. Palin's camp can point to the fact that the report says that the firing of Monegan was not out of line and that no charges against her are recommended. Anything beyond that is pure spin.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the original complaint was brought by two Democrats on the committee and that once the complaint was filed, there was no choice but to investigate it. I don't dispute that once the investigation was underway, it was conducted in a bipartisan fashion.

 

please don't profess to reading my mind, thanks.

 

I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to the general proposition that seems to be being expressed in this thread that Palin's transgressions make her unqualified for the office she seeks, while turning a blind eye to Obama's own ethics issues.

 

Not that this by itself makes her ineligible, but it is relevant to her suitability. Especially when she runs on a supposed record of ethics and fighting corruption.

Why is it only about Palin? Because that's the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss Obama and Rezko, why would you do it in this thread unless to try and redirect away from Palin? There are plenty of Obama threads and, if none of them work for you, you can always create a new thread.

 

I've just done a little research and you're right that the makeup of the committee is 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. You're also correct that it was a 12-0 vote. The two members that I was thinking of were Sen. Kim Elton, the chairman of the committee, and Sen. Hollis French, a former state prosecutor, who was given the task of managing the contractor for the investigation. Both are Democrats. French is the one who said: