Palin Goes Orwellian

[Puppycow]

This is a direct quote from the Branchflower report:

"Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a)."

She "abused her power" and "violated a statute" (that means she broke a law).

Palin's response (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/palin-makes-tro.html)?

"Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing," Palin said, "any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that."

:jaw:

Also this:

"Governor," asked a reporter with the Anchorage Daily News, "finding Number One on the report was that you abused your power by violating state law. Do you think you did anything wrong at all in this Troopergate case?"

"Not at all and I’ll tell you, it, I think that you’re always going to ruffle feathers as you do what you believe is in the best interest of the people whom you are serving," Palin said. "In this case I knew that I had to have the right people in the right position at the right time in this cabinet to best serve Alaskans, and Walt Monegan was not the right person at the right time to meet the goals that we had set out in our administration. So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all."


:jaw:

ETA: When will she say "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength"?

[Ziggurat]

"Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a)."

She "abused her power" and "violated a statute" (that means she broke a law).

Actually, it's not quite so simple. Here is the statute in question:
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/stattx07/query=*/doc/%7Bt16068%7D
That statute is an ethics code. Violating policy is frequently not illegal, though it can subject you to sanctions. While this may be a more narrow parsing of the term "legal wrongdoing" than one would like, it's not Orwellian.

But I do have to ask: did you even look up the statute in question before posting? One might have thought that it would be worth linking to in your original post.

[Puppycow]

Actually, it's not quite so simple. Here is the statute in question:
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/stattx07/query=*/doc/%7Bt16068%7D
That statute is an ethics code. Violating policy is frequently not illegal, though it can subject you to sanctions. While this may be a more narrow parsing of the term "legal wrongdoing" than one would like, it's not Orwellian.But she didn't stop there, did she? She claimed that the report cleared her of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity"

But I do have to ask: did you even look up the statute in question before posting? One might have thought that it would be worth linking to in your original post.

Yes, I have read Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a). It's in the Branchflower report.

Here is the link (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf)
The statute is on page 8.

[Darat]

Actually, it's not quite so simple. Here is the statute in question:
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/stattx07/query=*/doc/%7Bt16068%7D
That statute is an ethics code. Violating policy is frequently not illegal, though it can subject you to sanctions. While this may be a more narrow parsing of the term "legal wrongdoing" than one would like, it's not Orwellian.

But I do have to ask: did you even look up the statute in question before posting? One might have thought that it would be worth linking to in your original post.

The quotes have her saying "any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." and " and "So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all."

[Puppycow]

The quotes have her saying "any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." and " and "So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all."

Indeed.
It would be one thing to acknowledge the report's findings and disagree with them, but she's claiming that the gist of the report is other than what it is. There was much more than a "hint" that she did "unethical" activity.

[BenBurch]

Indeed.
It would be one thing to acknowledge the report's findings and disagree with them, but she's claiming that the gist of the report is other than what it is. There was much more than a "hint" that she did "unethical" activity.

Predictions; Soon she will refer to the press as "Nattering nabobs of negativism."

What was it he went down for? Tax evasion wasn't it?

Sarah is from the same mold.

7DIc8jdra0o

[Ziggurat]

But she didn't stop there, did she? She claimed that the report cleared her of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity"

Let's look at the quote in some more context, shall we?
"In this case I knew that I had to have the right people in the right position at the right time in this cabinet to best serve Alaskans, and Walt Monegan was not the right person at the right time to meet the goals that we had set out in our administration. So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all."

So she's talking specifically about the firing of Monegan. And guess what? The Branchflower report did clear her on that point. It's finding #2. He says, "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." (emphasis mine).

[leftysergeant]

So she's talking specifically about the firing of Monegan. And guess what? The Branchflower report did clear her on that point. It's finding #2. He says, "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." (emphasis mine).

She beat one charge. She is still stuck with the gooey brown stuff she got on her hands from the Wooten affair. She's dirty and there is not enough lipstick to make her look clean and virginal. She's palying games with the words. She is, like all the Republicans, in hot water and blurting out "Look! Shiny thing! Over there!"

[mhaze]

So...

No Palin going Orwellian?

[Tricky]

So...

No Palin going Orwellian?
Do you need it spelled out for you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink)
His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them;
***
ETA:
For some reason Palin's remarks remind me of a very sick joke:

Doctor: I have two pieces of very bad news for you. First, you have cancer. Second, you have Alzheimers.
Patient: Well at least I don't have cancer.

[leftysergeant]

Has anyone else noticed that Palin has an annoying way of repeating herself several times in each paragraph that she speaks? Like she was on some kind of loop. Not a great mind at work here. More like a beauty pageant contestant trying to hypnotize the judges.

[Puppycow]

Let's look at the quote in some more context, shall we?
"In this case I knew that I had to have the right people in the right position at the right time in this cabinet to best serve Alaskans, and Walt Monegan was not the right person at the right time to meet the goals that we had set out in our administration. So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all."

So she's talking specifically about the firing of Monegan. And guess what? The Branchflower report did clear her on that point. It's finding #2. He says, "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." (emphasis mine).

More context?
The reporter asked her specifically about Finding 1, not about Finding 2.
Here's the full context (http://community.adn.com/adn/node/132625):

ADN: Governor, finding No.1 on the report was that you abused your power by violating state law. Do you think you did anything wrong at all in this Troopergate case?

Palin: Not at all and I’ll tell you, it, I think that you’re always going to ruffle feathers as you do what you believe is in the best interest of the people whom you are serving. In this case I knew that I had to have the right people in the right position at the right time in this cabinet to best serve Alaskans, and Walt Monegan was not the right person at the right time to meet the goals that we had set out in our administration. So no, not having done anything wrong, and again very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.

[LibraryLady]

...Soon she will refer to the press as "Nattering nabobs of negativism."...



Only if Ben Stein starts writing her speeches.

[corplinx]

Well, finding 2 says she acted legally and within her power re: firing. Finding 1 says she violated the more open to interpretation ethics code not by direct action but by inaction.

If I was her, I'd claim victory and move on as well.

Hardly Orwellian.

[not_so_new]

Well, finding 2 says she acted legally and within her power re: firing. Finding 1 says she violated the more open to interpretation ethics code not by direct action but by inaction.

So she did something wrong in finding #1 and nothing wrong in finding #2 so she did nothing wrong?

Right.

If I was her, I'd claim victory and move on as well.

If I were her I wouldn't have been doing anything that had a question of impropriety in the first place. And I certainly would not have let my spouse use my public title to make phone calls related policy and staffing on my behalf.

Hardly Orwellian.

Palin can say that she has been "cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity..." unless you go and look at the findings where you can clearly see that she has been found guilty of unethical behavior.

Hardly Orwellian.

[Snide]

Only if Ben Stein starts writing her speeches.Sounds more like something Cicero would write. :)

[mhaze]

Well, finding 2 says she acted legally and within her power re: firing. Finding 1 says she violated the more open to interpretation ethics code not by direct action but by inaction.

If I was her, I'd claim victory and move on as well.

Hardly Orwellian.
A tempest in a teapot...

[Puppycow]

Reporter: Governor Palin, we hear that the chocolate ration has been reduced to 25 grams per week. Do you have a comment?

Palin: I'm pleased to announce that the chocolate ration has been increased to 25 grams per week.

Reporter: Governor, finding No.1 on the report was that you abused your power by violating state law.

Palin: I'm very much appreciating being cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.

Orwellian. :)

[Upchurch]

Perhaps "Baghdad Bob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf)ian" would be a more accurate term?

[Meadmaker]

This is one of those things I just can't get myself all excited about.

The statute is so vague as to apply to almost anyone. Is there anyone who holds public office and has not pursued a "personal interest" of some sort?

Furthermore, when all is said and done, there was one, count 'em one, official act undertaken, and that was the firing of Walt Monegan. She was cleared of any wrongdoing having to do with that act.

So, yeah, the finding was that she pursued a "personal interest" in the unsuccessful attempt to fire Wooten. OK. Yeah. She's a mean spirited nasty woman. I get that. I'm supposed to be outraged about this? I can't see it.

[DavidJames]

She's a mean spirited nasty woman. I get that. I'm supposed to be outraged about this? I can't see it.We've had eight years of an administration who felt they were above the law. This incident suggests she would bring more of the same.

[Tricky]

So, yeah, the finding was that she pursued a "personal interest" in the unsuccessful attempt to fire Wooten. OK. Yeah. She's a mean spirited nasty woman. I get that. I'm supposed to be outraged about this? I can't see it.
You don't have to be outraged about it. You can calmly and rationally add it to the factors you use in your decision-making. Frankly, too many of our political enthusiasts here spend their lives in a state of constant outrage.

But is should be a factor. Cronyism and insistance on blind loyalty is one of the things that has made Dubya's tenure so noxious. I don't think we want to go that road again.

[Ziggurat]

More context?
The reporter asked her specifically about Finding 1, not about Finding 2.

And she changed the subject to Monegan's firing. Standard interview technique: answer the question you want to, not the question you're asked. She won't win awards for forthrightness, but you're trying to portray it as something completely beyond ordinary political evasiveness and dodging, and it just isn't.

[JoeTheJuggler]

For the people trying to defend Palin's answer, don't forget she used the word "any". She said the report cleared her of "any legal wrongdoing" and "any hint of any kind of unethical activity".

That's a lie.

It's not a matter of spin, or how you parse her words. It's just a flat out lie.

[Meadmaker]

You don't have to be outraged about it. You can calmly and rationally add it to the factors you use in your decision-making. Frankly, too many of our political enthusiasts here spend their lives in a state of constant outrage.

But is should be a factor. Cronyism and insistance on blind loyalty is one of the things that has made Dubya's tenure so noxious. I don't think we want to go that road again.


Good point. Still, I guess what disturbs me is the attempt to criminalize everything. She tried, and failed, to get her sister's ex husband fired. That says something about her as a vindictive individual, but criminal? I'm just not seeing it.

Yes, I know that she was found to have violated a statute, but read the statute and you'll see that darned near everyone could be said to have violated that statute. The statute itself acknowledges that, in the sub pararagraphs where it is acknowledged that all officeholders are likely to have personal interests, and that it isn't a violation of the law to pursue them. It's only a violation of the law to let them interfere with your duties as an officeholder, and I don't think anyone could reasonably say that's the case here.

Maybe if she had succeeded in firing him, there might be something more to it for me, but I just don't see this as a case of her holding herself "above the law".

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, I know that she was found to have violated a statute, but read the statute and you'll see that darned near everyone could be said to have violated that statute. The statute itself acknowledges that, in the sub pararagraphs where it is acknowledged that all officeholders are likely to have personal interests, and that it isn't a violation of the law to pursue them. It's only a violation of the law to let them interfere with your duties as an officeholder, and I don't think anyone could reasonably say that's the case here.

In fact, the report said specifically that she violated the ordinance, so that means in her case it was not the case that the ordinance acknowledges as the pursuit of personal interests that do not constitute a violation.

It is a huge concern that someone who might be a heartbeat away from being the president has been found guilty of abusing the power of the highest office she's held to date.

She already claimed executive privilege to try to keep her e-mails with Todd away from investigators. The last thing we need is another president who thinks the chief of the executive branch is above the law.

[fuelair]

Sounds more like something Cicero would write. :)
Or, maybe Spiro Agnew.:D

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sounds more like something Cicero would write. :)
"O tempora! O mores!"

[Nyarlathotep]

"O tempora! O mores!"

[Homer Simpson]

Mmmmmmm......Tempura and Smores..

[/Homer Simpson]

[not_so_new]

It is a huge concern that someone who might be a heartbeat away from being the president has been found guilty of abusing the power of the highest office she's held to date.

She already claimed executive privilege to try to keep her e-mails with Todd away from investigators. The last thing we need is another president who thinks the chief of the executive branch is above the law.

I would find it hard to agree any more with this statment than I already do.

:D

[Darth Rotor]

She beat one charge. She is still stuck with the gooey brown stuff she got on her hands from the Wooten affair. She's dirty and there is not enough lipstick to make her look clean and virginal. She's palying games with the words. She is, like all the Republicans, in hot water and blurting out "Look! Shiny thing! Over there!"
Yeah, and Bill Clinton never inhaled.

Right.

At least Al Gore was man enough to say "hell yeah, I tried it, who didn't" rather than lie about it.

What is it about election season that kills critical thinking?

Is it the hot air?

[Darth Rotor]

Has anyone else noticed that Palin has an annoying way of repeating herself several times in each paragraph that she speaks? Like she was on some kind of loop. Not a great mind at work here. More like a beauty pageant contestant trying to hypnotize the judges.
Yep, I noticed that. It is a public speaking technique taught to people who need to emphasize certain points. I have always found it annoying and clumsy to see and listen to.

DR

[Ausmerican]

Yep, I noticed that. It is a public speaking technique taught to people who need to emphasize certain points. I have always found it annoying and clumsy to see and listen to.

DR

Yeah Darth but the good ones, even the adequate ones, rephrase it the second time. Palin just repeats the line like there is a glitch in the matrix.

[Tricky]

Yep, I noticed that. It is a public speaking technique taught to people who need to emphasize certain points. I have always found it annoying and clumsy to see and listen to.
Well, There are lots of mannerisms, and for my money, this one is no worse than the annoying "uh" that Biden uses so much. Lots of people use a catch phrase to fill a pause. Kennedy used to say "Let me say this about that," and Nixon used to say "Let me make myself perfectly clear."

I have to watch myself or I will precede every statement, written or oral, with "Well..."

Someone once said, "A pipe give a wise man time to think and a fool something to stick in his mouth."

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah Darth but the good ones, even the adequate ones, rephrase it the second time. Palin just repeats the line like there is a glitch in the matrix.
Aye, hence my annoyance when the better style, described in your first clause, isn't used.

DR

[UserGoogol]

For the people trying to defend Palin's answer, don't forget she used the word "any". She said the report cleared her of "any legal wrongdoing" and "any hint of any kind of unethical activity".

That's a lie.

It's not a matter of spin, or how you parse her words. It's just a flat out lie.

Well, ethics is not a matter of what is written down in the rules, but of right and wrong. She may simply believe that what she was cleared of was unethical but that what she was shown to have done was totally ethical. Which is an awfully convenient way of looking at things, but it does make what she said almost-but-not-quite-a-lie.

[gdnp]

Oh please. You can debate the rest of it, but the statement that she has been cleared of any hint of any unethical activity is a flat-out lie. Period end.

[leftysergeant]

Oh please. You can debate the rest of it, but the statement that she has been cleared of any hint of any unethical activity is a flat-out lie. Period end.

Or she is delusional, which is also kind of a red flag when someone wants custody of the Football.

[mhaze]

It's a slap on the wrist and maybe a $500 fine. Case closed. If no fine is assessed, the import is that the offense was so minor in nature as to not warrant it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's a slap on the wrist and maybe a $500 fine. Case closed. If no fine is assessed, the import is that the offense was so minor in nature as to not warrant it.

Yes, but what do you make of Palin's statement in the OP?

[Meadmaker]

When Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, he used Arkansas State Troopers to help him pick up dates.

Hilary Clinton, as First Lady, "lost" some old law firm records that had been subpoenaed, but a copy of them was found by the maid in the White House living quarters.

Speaking of firing people, Hillary fired the Travel Office staff, replaced them with her cronies, and made up a bunch of slanderous things about the previous guy in charge, who successfully sued the government for compensation over the deal.

And of course, Bill himself was disbarred for unethical behavior.

On the other side of the aisle, Newt Gingrich was forced to pay a fairly significant fine for teaching a history class on cable television.

I'm willing to bet that the degree of outrage displayed varies in all of these incidents, based largely on party affiliation.

I just have a hard time getting myself worked up about any of this, or about the Governor of Alaska trying to get a trooper fired.

What disturbs me is I wonder who in their right mind would seek high office in the United States.

Technically, there can be no doubt, she was not cleared of all wrongdoing by the commission. However, as with all the other ethical violations listed in this thread, I just can't get worked up about any of them. (Maybe, just maybe, the law firm records. I think lying to avoid a subpoena is pretty serious stuff. However, I'm glad they didn't press the investigation, because I don't think they ever should have been subpoenaed in the first place.) I think I'm a pretty ethical person, and I shudder to think what sort of dirt they could come up with if I were ever in a position to be President.

[Tricky]

Here's how I decide whether or not to be outraged:

Person get's caught being unfaithful, soliciting sex in a bathroom, whacking off to gay porn? Don't care. Has no effect on their ability to govern.

Person does one of the above after, during or before attacking another politician for doing the same? Hypocrite. Mild outrage.

Person commits abuse of office that trashes the reputation of certain individuals? Fairly outraged, but shouldn't be career-destroying.

Person tells lies, misrepresents intelligence or enables others to commit unethical acts that cause thousands of people to die or thousands-to-millions of people to lose their life's savings. This is about as outraged as I can get.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, ethics is not a matter of what is written down in the rules, but of right and wrong. She may simply believe that what she was cleared of was unethical but that what she was shown to have done was totally ethical. Which is an awfully convenient way of looking at things, but it does make what she said almost-but-not-quite-a-lie.

Whether or not she thinks she did anything wrong, the issue raised in the OP is that she claims this report cleared her of any violation of the law or unethical behavior of any kind.

She might believe she broke no laws and behaved ethically, but the report very clearly states otherwise. As someone else said, it would be one thing for her to say she disagrees with the findings (or with some of the findings) in the report, but she's claiming the report cleared her of breaking any laws or committing any unethical behavior.

That is why her remark is a lie.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Speaking of Orwellian doublespeak in the troopergate matter. . . .

Palin's people kept claiming the investigation was corrupted by an influx of Obama people. All I heard in the news was how the McCain campaign took over her defense (brought in lawyers from NY and so on). Is there any evidence that the Obama campaign was involved in any way with the investigation?

I believe this was the reason they gave for first promising cooperation ("Hold me accountable!") and then refusing to obey subpoenas and trying hard to get the matter moved into the judicial system.

[gdnp]

It is also amazing how Obama was able to infiltrate the legislative committee that approved this biased report unanimously.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think you're pointing to an answer to Iamme's question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126328): Obama is also part of the Illuminati!

[gdnp]

I think you're pointing to an answer to Iamme's question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=126328): Obama is also part of the Illuminati!

Hey, post it in the Things the Liberal Media won't tell you about Barack Obama (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4121608#post4121608) thread.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I did, but it wasn't exactly pithy.

[Meadmaker]

Serious question:

Who here thinks that Palin did anything wrong in Troopergate?

We know that the report says she violated a statute. Yes, we all agree about that. Who thinks she did anything wrong? By "wrong", I mean immoral. I mean something that wasn't just bad politics, but was actually something for which punishment ought to be meted out, or at the very least would make someone have cause to say that they were unjustifiably harmed, and maybe seek compensation.

My own opinion is that she was kind of a bad boss. When bosses bring up matters that they would like to see happen, subordinates might feel pressure to do something that they don't think is the best thing. That is being a bad boss. However, I won't say it is immoral. In this case, Palin, or her husband. inquiring about Wooten to Monegan can't be good. When she fired him, he understandably thought that the Wooten situation might have had something to do with it. Who knows? Maybe it did. On the other hand, the report found there were non-Wooten reasons to fire him, so she was cleared of wrongdoing on that count.

It goes back to my fear of criminalizing ordinary human behavior. From what I have read, she behaved pretty normally in this case. Her behavior wasn't exemplary, in my opinion, but I can't chide her for anything worse than letting her emotions get in the way of her judgements, and perhaps not putting herself on the other side of a situation.

It reinforces my opinion that she has a bull in a china shop approach to management, which I don't like, but I worry that this is just one more example of the politics of personal destruction. I can't see what she did as unethical.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Serious question:

Who here thinks that Palin did anything wrong in Troopergate?

I do.

The bipartisan committee that investigated the matter concluded that she abused the power of her office to pursue a personal cause.

This despite the best efforts of a high-powered legal defense team provided by the McCain campaign.

[leftysergeant]

If no fine is assessed, the import is that the offense was so minor in nature as to not warrant it.

It is still a sleazy act and she had little opportunity to do anything more sleazy. Not about to trust her with the power to appoint an Attorney General.

I fear getting another AG Gonzo.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Technically, there can be no doubt, she was not cleared of all wrongdoing by the commission. However, as with all the other ethical violations listed in this thread, I just can't get worked up about any of them.
What do you mean by "technically"? Is there some way of reading it where their report somehow clears her of all wrongdoing?

I'm not sure what you mean about getting worked up about it, but it seems like you agree with the point of the OP of this thread. The report said x, and Palin says the report said not-x.

[not_so_new]

Serious question:

Who here thinks that Palin did anything wrong in Troopergate?

{snip good points that I just disagree with for the most part}

It reinforces my opinion that she has a bull in a china shop approach to management, which I don't like, but I worry that this is just one more example of the politics of personal destruction. I can't see what she did as unethical.

Well first let's clear this up right away.

The people who looked into this DID find her actions unethical. It's not about what you and I think, it's about the people who looked into this and from what I can tell this was a bipartition affair. They know more about it than I do and until someone can prove to me that their findings were tainted or more evidence is presented I have to take their word that she did something unethical.

The rest is just us bickering about HOW unethical her actions were.

Second, on that same point I don't think this is a firing offence. I don't think she will get censured or even really get a slap on the wrist.

BUT... a big huge flashing :shocked: BUT

This DOES show a potential pattern of AT best poor decision making and at worse abuse that should cause any right thinking individual to give pause.

The thing that amazes me is that we all complain that these politicians are just dirty liars and crooks then when they lie about something that is maybe not Earthshaking we give them a pass.

I say hold them accountable. They are no better than you or I and damn it. If I do something unethical in my job I don't get a promotion and a better paying or more prestigious position out of the deal, should they?

[Puppycow]

Serious question:

Who here thinks that Palin did anything wrong in Troopergate?


I do. Wooten had already been punished for his petty misdemeanors. They were trying to smear him and take away his livelyhood.

It goes back to my fear of criminalizing ordinary human behavior.Like Wooten's ordinary human behavior? Heck, they hired a private investigator to dig up dirt on the guy. There was a vicious vendetta.

This guy was not a wife-beater BTW. Even the Palins don't claim that.

[Tricky]

I do.

The bipartisan committee that investigated the matter concluded that she abused the power of her office to pursue a personal cause.

This despite the best efforts of a high-powered legal defense team provided by the McCain campaign.
As I recall, the bipartisan committe had ten Republicans and four Democrats, and yet the findings were unanimous. Also the Alaska courts (also heavily Republican, as is almost everything in Alaska) denied every motion to scrap or delay the investigation.

How did Obama manage to get his moles into so many places?

[Darth Rotor]

It is still a sleazy act and she had little opportunity to do anything more sleazy. Not about to trust her with the power to appoint an Attorney General.
She's not running for president. She is not Cheney to McCain's Bush. A little perspective here, eh?
I fear getting another AG Gonzo.
Me too.

[Darth Rotor]

How did Obama manage to get his moles into so many places?
He hired Kenneth Graham. :D

(Oblique reference to Wind in the Willows)

[Boo]

Yes, I think she did do something wrong.

She allowed someone who was not a member of her staff, held no position within the executive branch of the state government and who had no legitimate business involving the management of state personnel access to that process and attempt to influence decisions of state employees.

She allowed this individual to meet one on one with a prospective state director to discuss personnel that would be under the direct control of that director if he was selected. She allowed the same individual access to the personnel files of state employees one of whom was someone the individual had a personal grievance against.

This is more then just poor management or a being a "bad boss".

Whether it's immoral depends on your moral code. For some people it may not be immoral. It is most assuredly unethical, regardless of whether done by a governor or an office manager or a business owner.

It is only criminal if ethical behavior has been codified and that behavior reasonably is determined to be in violation.

It bothers me to the same degree if I had discovered this had happened at my place of my employment or at any other business I entrust personally or professionally. This type of behavior speaks volumes about the leadership style, professional and personal ethics of a person. If Sarah Palin was no more then the Governor of Alaska I doubt it would be more then a blip on my radar, as is she is running for the second highest office in the country. She has demonstrated a history of similar behavior whether at the local or state level. I am appalled at the thought of what she will have access to and whom she will share that access if Sen. McCain is elected.


Yes, I really think she did something wrong. I also think that those individuals asking us to entrust them with national governance should be held to a higher standard then "Joe Six-Pack". This is much more then the criminalizing of "ordinary human behavior". The majority of ordinary humans I know would not see what she did as "normal behavior".



Boo

[gdnp]

I do too. I do not believe that public officials should use the power of their office to pursue personal vendettas.

Government officials should not steer no-bid contracts to their friends.

Legislators should not ask a prosecutor to back off an investigation of a political supporter.

Zoning boards should not give preferential treatment to developers that donated to the mayor's reelection campaign.

It comes down to the equal protection clause.

Pressuring a subordinate to fire your former brother in law, and then firing the subordinate when he refuses, is an abuse of power.

Palin is lucky that Wooten was not fired. She would be in even more hot water if he had been.

[JoeTheJuggler]

She's not running for president. She is not Cheney to McCain's Bush. A little perspective here, eh?
You do know about succession in the event McCain is incapacitated or dies while in office, don't you?

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I recall, the bipartisan committe had ten Republicans and four Democrats, and yet the findings were unanimous. Also the Alaska courts (also heavily Republican, as is almost everything in Alaska) denied every motion to scrap or delay the investigation.

How did Obama manage to get his moles into so many places?

Shhhh!

Obama is part of the Illuminati.

[Tricky]

How did Obama manage to get his moles into so many places?

He hired Kenneth Graham. :D

(Oblique reference to Wind in the Willows)
At least you didn't make an oblique reference to a slightly chocolatey Mexican hot sauce.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just be sure you don't talk about moles around McCain. . . .or his dermatologist or oncologist.

[peptoabysmal]

I'm kind of torn on this issue. I think Palin did somewhat abuse her authority in a dopey, redneck way, but I also think that the person at the center of the controversy, Trooper Wooten, is a dirtbag.

http://www.adn.com/politics/story/476430.html

[FreshHat]

I have to watch myself or I will precede every statement, written or oral, with "Well..."



How oral-wellian of you !

[Meadmaker]

What do you mean by "technically"? Is there some way of reading it where their report somehow clears her of all wrongdoing?

I'm not sure what you mean about getting worked up about it, but it seems like you agree with the point of the OP of this thread. The report said x, and Palin says the report said not-x.

She certainly is performing a rather audacious spin.

If I had to speculate on her mindest when making that statement, it would have to be something along the lines that she had been cleared of all actionable charges, and who cares about the rest of it. In other words, the investigation was focused on the firing of Monegan. Had it found that she had acted unethically in firing Monegan, she could have been in real trouble. It didn't.

It did criticize her and her husband for making a bunch of phone calls that ultimately had no effect. The primary finding seems to be that she deserves her nickname "barracuda", but that a shorter word starting with the same letter might also be appropriate.

In my mind, I just can't help comparing and contrasting Troopergate with Travelgate. (Youngsters on the board will just have to take my word for it, or read wikipedia.) There are a lot of parallels, ending with a report that criticized the principal party for unethical behavior, but found insufficient evidence to seek further action to punish the unethical behavior. There's one other similarity. In both cases, a fair number of people might cite these "gates" as evidence that somebody is unfit for high office. Curiously, though, very few people who cite one of those "gates" for evidence of unethical behavior would cite the other.

[not_so_new]

In both cases, a fair number of people might cite these "gates" as evidence that somebody is unfit for high office. Curiously, though, very few people who cite one of those "gates" for evidence of unethical behavior would cite the other.

Without a doubt I DO hold both "gates" up as examples of unethical behavior, 100% no questions asked.

I was just as up in arms about Travelgate at the time. Maybe I am the rare bird (it wouldn't be the first time that charge was leveled against me) but I think people should behave in an ethical manner at all times.... public officials doubly so. They shouldn't be cut any slack, in fact they should be held to a higher standard.

I said it above and I will say it again I fear.....

I say hold them accountable. They are no better than you or I and damn it. If I do something unethical in my job I don't get a promotion and a better paying or more prestigious position out of the deal, should they?

[pgwenthold]

Yep, I noticed that. It is a public speaking technique taught to people who need to emphasize certain points.

It's also the technique that clueless college students use when they don't know the answer, but think if they keep repeating the same thing over and over that maybe the instructors will think they are saying something useful. It is often done in association with giving an answer that restates the premise of the question. Like

"Can you explain why Alaska's proximity to Russia helps you with foreign policy?"
"It certainly does because we share a border with foreign countries..."

[Meadmaker]

I was just as up in arms about Travelgate at the time. Maybe I am the rare bird ....

You seem rare to me. I am not up in arms about either, and you are up in arms about both, but most people seem to be up in arms about one or the other, based on party affiliation.

FWIW, I am not "up in arms" about either, but I think both of them make the principal actors look pretty bad.

[not_so_new]

You seem rare to me. I am not up in arms about either, and you are up in arms about both, but most people seem to be up in arms about one or the other, based on party affiliation.

FWIW, I am not "up in arms" about either, but I think both of them make the principal actors look pretty bad.

I said it above and I will say it again I fear.....

I say hold them accountable. They are no better than you or I and damn it. If I do something unethical in my job I don't get a promotion and a better paying or more prestigious position out of the deal, should they?

[JoeTheJuggler]

She certainly is performing a rather audacious spin.
Her statement was beyond "spin"--it was completely contrary to fact, and she certainly knows it. She claimed the report cleared her of any unethical behavior and of violating any laws. It found just the opposite--that she unethically abused the power of her office and that in so doing she violated state law.


If I had to speculate on her mindest when making that statement, it would have to be something along the lines that she had been cleared of all actionable charges, and who cares about the rest of it. In other words, the investigation was focused on the firing of Monegan. Had it found that she had acted unethically in firing Monegan, she could have been in real trouble. It didn't.
Who says she's been cleared of all actionable behavior? (I take "actionable" to mean something for which she can be sued or charged in criminal court.) Isn't that for the courts to decide if anyone tries to sue or file charges against her?

She was found by a legislative investigative committee to have violated state law. She can be punished when the legislature convenes (I think in January). So if this committee had anything to say about whether her behavior was "actionable" their findings seem to be yes.

[pgwenthold]

A guest on the Rachel Maddow (radio) show last night mentioned that it is expected for Wooten to file a civil suit against Palin. The question is, what will happen if McCain wins and she is vice-president. Will she have to face the suit? You know, the Supreme Court ruled recently (in a 9 - 0 decision) that sitting executives have to face civil suits. The republicans were all in favor of it at the time. You may remember the case...something about "Jones v Clinton"

[Malerin]

Should Palin be punished? Of course. She was found to have acted unethically in her capacity as governor. I wouldn't call it career ending, but it certainly reinforces an existing narrative.

From an editorial by the Anchorage Daily News:

"Sarah Palin's reaction to the Legislature's Troopergate report is an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation.

She claims the report "vindicates" her. She said that the investigation found "no unlawful or unethical activity on my part."

Her response is either astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian."

http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/555236.html

[Ziggurat]

The people who looked into this DID find her actions unethical.

No. The person who looked into this found her actions unethical. I use the singular because that's all the report is: the findings of one man. He was contracted to do the investigation by a council of multiple people, but the Branchflower report itself is the conclusion of only one man.

[not_so_new]

No. The person who looked into this found her actions unethical. I use the singular because that's all the report is: the findings of one man. He was contracted to do the investigation by a council of multiple people, but the Branchflower report itself is the conclusion of only one man.

Which was then reviewed by the same bipartisan counsel and they agreed with the findings.

If they didn't agree they would have said so, do you have any statements by any of the council members disagreeing with the findings?

[gdnp]

No. The person who looked into this found her actions unethical. I use the singular because that's all the report is: the findings of one man. He was contracted to do the investigation by a council of multiple people, but the Branchflower report itself is the conclusion of only one man.

If I am not mistaken, the report was then reviewed and discussed by the committee in closed session for 6 hours or so, and then approved on a 12-0 vote. Thus I think it fair to say that the committee found her actions unethical.

[Meadmaker]

If I do something unethical in my job I don't get a promotion and a better paying or more prestigious position out of the deal, should they?

I've seen plenty of people rise through the ranks at work while doing much worse than Palin is accused of.

[gdnp]

I've seen plenty of people rise through the ranks at work while doing much worse than Palin is accused of.

Really? Company VP tries to get his sister's ex-husband fired on trump-up charges, then fires the guy's supervisor when he won't do it? No big deal?

[Meadmaker]

Really? Company VP tries to get his sister's ex-husband fired on trump-up charges, then fires the guy's supervisor when he won't do it? No big deal?

Actually, yes. Relationships were slightly different, but, yes. It was company VP, and there was an in-law involved, and the lawsuit was dismissed when it was determined that there were legitimate reasons for firing the other guy, in addition to whatever personal grudges might have been held.

Meanwhile, it's common to take credit for someone else's work on a successful project, and common to lay blame on someone else for an unsuccessful one. Maybe my own company just has more skullduggery than most, but I could name a few people who have destroyed reputations through lies, and the only thing that prevents a lawsuit is an international border.

And of course, we see here one of these problems with this sort of investigation. She was cleared of firing the supervisor improperly. It was determined that, actually, there were legitimate reasons to fire Monegan, totally unrelated to the Wooten affair, but that won't stop the allegations.

It occurred to me why these sorts of investigations leave a bad taste in my mouth. What you have is an investigation to pursue a question of whether someone abused their power by following a personal agenda. Who launches that investigation, and why?