Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:10 PM ET, 10/13/2008

Four Pinocchios for Palin

By Michael Dobbs


On the campaign trail.

"I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that."
--Sarah Palin, phone interview with Alaska reporters, October 11, 2008.

Sarah Palin has insisted that a formal investigation into the "Troopergate" controversy in Alaska has exonerated her of "unlawful or unethical" activity. The Republican vice-presidential pick has told critics to read the report by an investigator appointed by the State Legislative Council to determine whether she had abused her power as Alaska governor to push for the firing of a state trooper formerly married to her sister. But the report's finding that Palin breached the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is very clear.

The Facts

Within weeks of becoming governor of Alaska in November 2006, Sarah Palin began putting pressure on state officials to fire her former brother-in-law, Mike Wooten, who was embroiled in a bitter child custody dispute with Palin's sister Molly. She made her wishes clear in e-mails to her newly installed public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan. Monegan resisted the pressure from Palin and her husband to fire Trooper Wooten, and was dismissed in July 2008 on the grounds of poor performance and not being "a team player."

On August 1, the Republican-dominated Alaska legislature hired an independent investigator, Stephen Branchflower, to look into the matter. The Branchflower report, published on Friday and available in full here, concluded that Palin had the legal right to fire Monegan. However, it also concluded that Palin had "abused her power by violating Section 39.52.119(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act," which is worded as follows:

The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.

The Branchflower report concludes that Palin "knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired." It adds that she and her husband Todd attempted "to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons." Subordinates were placed in the situation where they had to choose whether to "please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior's displeasure," a clear conflict of interest.

According to Branchflower, the Palins declined to cooperate fully with his investigation. The governor's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, has depicted the Branchflower report as a partisan attempt to "smear the governor by innuendo." Van Flein argues that Branchflower's findings are flawed because Palin received "no monetary benefit" from her actions.

The Pinocchio Test

Whether or not the Branchflower report -- which was launched by a bipartisan committee -- was a partisan smear job is debatable. What is not debatable is that the report clearly states that she violated the State Ethics Act. Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of "legal wrongdoing," since she did have the authority to fire Monegan. But it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity."

(About our rating scale.)

By Michael Dobbs  | October 13, 2008; 12:10 PM ET
Categories:  4 Pinocchios, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Did Obama "lie" about Ayers?
Next: 'Jobs, Baby, Jobs'

Comments

Palin earns four Pinocchios every time she opens her mouth.

Posted by: OD | October 13, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

She had the authority to fire someone and she exercised that authority.

*YAWN*

I can't believe I wasted 90 seconds skimming this.

Dobbs, just vote for Obama and get it over with.

Posted by: Bob | October 13, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I would not waste my time on Palin as she has proved to be an unreliable candidate by even many of her own party. Her polls show her to be a drag on the ticket with a lack of knowledge most college graduates are better qualified than she while Troopergate has shown a defined abuse of power despite her lies on the campaign trail. She imploded!

Posted by: Cindy | October 13, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you should stop skimming, Bob, and start reading. But then again, we wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your complaints about the "liberal" media.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | October 13, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Will there EVER be a hard-hitting Fact Checker on Obama or Biden?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

This is a hungry, power struck, abusive angry woman who's mindset is still caught up in the 40's, 50's, & 60's. She and her family deserves whatever happen to them. Her credibility is shot down the gutter along with her character...It felt great to watch my fellow Philladelphians boo her and her kids on the Flyer's floor on Saturday night...No loud music could drown out such screams of disgust from the fans!!! She's cooked on both sides...send her skiing back to Alaska, her and her entire KKK klan!

Posted by: Yes We Can! | October 13, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Dobbs,

I'm glad you reviewed what Governor Palin said, but I'm curious what you are reserving that fifth Pinocchio for. Here is a quote from Finding 1, on page 8 of the Branchflower Report;

"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

That sounds an awful lot like breaking the law to me. How is that not "legal wrongdoing"? And certainly it sounds as though it indicates unethical activity. Of course, I'm no expert. What more would she have to have said to get that perfect five-Pinocchio score in your estimation?

She did not comment on whether she believes she committed a crime or unethical behavior. She described the contents of the committee's report, which are unambigious and available for anyone with a browser and two eyes to read - even my lovely wife, Morgan Fairchild.

Posted by: Paging Jon Lovitz - | October 13, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin had the full legal right to fire Monegan, without just cause.

Sarah Palin is guilty of an offence of breaching the public trust, as an elected official of the State of Alaska.

Is she Impeachable?
I think she might be.

Posted by: Larry the cable guy | October 13, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

OD:

Regardless of your learned opinion, the Report confirmed she had the legal right to fire Monegan. My wife and I already voted for McCain-Palin, so it doesn't matter to us one way or the other.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Are all the Democrats so stupid, or only Washington Post journalists?

Posted by: seinfeld | October 13, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Paging Jon Lovitz:

There is no "fifth" Pinocchio award -- just take a look at "About our rating scale" -- Mr. Dobbs reserves four Pinocchios for McCain or, now, Palin only.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

In light of this, how many Pinocchios does she get for "shouting out" about being a super-ethical reformer? Looks to me like the "maverick" mask has slipped to reveal that she's a true "old-time politician."

Posted by: Alexandra | October 13, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The Great One (laughs) has lied on numerous occasions. His loyal toady automatons lack the sufficient number of brain cells to process the truth about their false messiah. From lying about his committment to public finance of his campaign to his very close relationship to the vile Rev Wright to his close connection with anti-American terrorists, Obama has a hard time with telling the truth. And he definitely does not belong in the White House. Palin has every right to complain about the partisan witchhunt she was subjected to. She had every right as an executive to fire the insubordinate Commissioner.

Posted by: Dave J | October 13, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD:

While the report confirmed that she had the legal right to fire Monegan, it also stated unequivocably that she had violated the state's ethics statute.

That's both a violation of the law and a transgression of ethical boundaries.

Her statements that she was cleared are blatant lies.

Whether you support McCain/Palin or not; you're wearing blinders if you don't see the dishonesty.

Posted by: alannee | October 13, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Palin
Has the legal right as Governor (Executive Director) of the state of Alaska to fire anyone she believes is not a good part of her cabinet. Presidents have the same right for their cabinet. She demanded the resignation of the Commissioner (who refused) and therefore fired him. Game Set Match. You can find an abuse of power by any government official anytime a servant of the people is asked to resign. However as a rep of the people, you must submit a resignation when asked to do so. Look it up and quit digging in a hole that has concrete in the bottom.

Posted by: wwhatisuppeople | October 13, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

See the best Sarah Palin impersonators, short clip. Very Funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMebGbcC2Sg

See What they didnt show during the debate
What the media didnt cover, the debate outtakes. A tense moment between tom brokaw and John McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mng0njC1D6c

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

alannee:

Read the Report, which states that Palin was within her legal right, EVEN IF she did so in part because he didn't bow to pressure to sack the trooper. Worse case scenario, she pays the $5000 fine and gets back to the campaign trail.

Back to the clear bias on Mr. Dobbs (The "Fact" Checker), please note that the "FEATURED ITEM" is from MAY of 2008. You can't tell me that Obama has told at least ONE whopper since then?!

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD

There is a difference between what is legally acceptable and what is morally right. Just because her actions meet a legal standard does not mean they pass a moral standard. Are you suggesting that abuses of power are ok?

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Dave J said: "Palin has every right to complain about the partisan witchhunt she was subjected to."

Hmmm.... a panel of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats certainly constitutes a "partisan witch hunt". Wow - even her own party is being blamed for telling the truth. Oh, and I thought she prayed to be immune from witches?

Get a life!

Posted by: Limey | October 13, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

I agree that, just because her actions meet a legal standard, does not mean they necessarily pass a moral standard. For instance, I would have personally defended my sister with a firearm. And, I am indeed suggesting that would have been ok. As for Gov. Palin's actions, if there's a legal right to fire Monegan, there's no abuse of power in that regard. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Limey:

She has made enemies in her own party by exposing corruption wherever it is. If all 10 Republicans are voting for Obama, or indeed believe that Gov. Palin is a witch, would THAT qualify as a "witch hunt" to you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

@seinfeld: Are all Republicans so stupid, or just the ones who go to the trouble of posting vacant one-liners in article comment sections?

Posted by: Derek | October 13, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Derek:

You mean vacant one-liners such as "Are all Republicans so stupid, or just the ones who go to the trouble of posting vacant one-liners in article comment sections?"?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin did not abuse her powers. She talked to Monnegan two times about Trooper Wooten. Neither time did she intimidate Monnegan to fire Wooten. For her to have violated the ethics act she would have to have made personal or financial gains. She did none of them. Wooten is still a trooper after Monnegan was fired. This was not a fair investigation. Branchflower has ties to Monnegan. Four of the leaders on the legislative investigation have reason's to get her. If you read the Alaska papers some of the Senators on that same Legislative panel don't think she abused her powers. Lost in all of this is the trooper was a bad guy.

Posted by: Tbone | October 13, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

The fact is. This state trooper was charged of using a taser! yes a TASER!!!!!!! on his own step son. I think that alone is grounds to fire him. What would you do if someone had needlessly and brutally used a taser on your son or nephew? I think your actions would not be any differant from Palins. She had every right to have him fired. The media and all the anti-Palins out there have grabbed a hold of this and blwoing it WAY out of proportion, fudging the details.

Posted by: JS | October 13, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

She is simply awful. The only good thing she has is her closet of shoes. Yeah, that's right, I said shoes. No other merits at all.

Posted by: Susan | October 13, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Tbone:

Thank you for keeping some perspective on the matter.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

So you believe that abuse of power is only defined within the limits of the law. Therefore, her actions should only be bound by what is legal or not. That sets a very low standard, and I would argue, encourages the kind of behaviour that seeks to exploit the limit of the law for personal gain. Isn't this where morals are needed the most?

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

To JakeD,

It is disturbing to know that people have already made up their minds regarding their vote. You are an American and you should take pride and interest in the leaders of our country. These are the people who will represent us with other countries. These are the individuals who will decide what happens to our economy and our health care. This is not an easy job and every statement and action should be weighed heavily before we make any decisions on November 4th.

Posted by: Jules | October 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Susan:

She's also very pro-life. That's why my wife and I already voted for McCain-Palin.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

Abuse of power is, for the purposes of this report and any anticipated legal action, ONLY defined within the limits of the law. I trust her "morals" more than I do Barack HUSSEIN Obama's, that's for sure. The court of public opinion will decide the rest by November 4th.

Jules:

Are you suggesting that everyone who voted already for Obama are wrong too?! Somehow, I doubt that ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

She used her office to fire Monegan because he would not fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to use her office to cause her ex-brother-in law harm - and when that failed she fired the man who stood in the way in an effort to put someone more malleable in his place. Investigations of the complaints filed against Wooten resulted in a one week suspension without pay, there was no credible evidence - only the complaints of the Palins. The report also points out that the "first dude" played a significant role in this and had unprecedated access and power. Is this someone you really want to give more power to? She and first dude need to go back to Alaska.

Posted by: Liza | October 13, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Liza:

To answer your question, yes (my wife and I already voted for her and McCain). Have you actually read the report? I have, and I agree that she was cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Put Palin in an octopus suit and maybe she will have enough hands for all the shovels.
She's digging herself and the Republicans a deep, deep hole.

Posted by: akmk from Alaska | October 13, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

I agree that, just because her actions meet a legal standard, does not mean they necessarily pass a moral standard. For instance, I would have personally defended my sister with a firearm. And, I am indeed suggesting that would have been ok. As for Gov. Palin's actions, if there's a legal right to fire Monegan, there's no abuse of power in that regard. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:11 PM

---------------------------
Next canard??? Really? So YOU have spoken, cleared up the confusion, and now its on to the next subject? Ewww Boy. Again just because she didnt break the law doesnt mean that she didnt ABUSE HER POWER as stated in the Branchflower report. Have you actually read it? Or did you do what McCain did with the Paulson report and not even bother to read it? This is about ethics, cronyism and the use of political power as a weapon. You know like Alberto Gonzales's politicising the justice department? What seems to be more pathetic with regards to this investigation is her response as indicated in above article. Partisian? Thats the best she can do? A panel with 10 REPUBS and 4 DEMS which was started before she was tapped for VP is a "witch-hunt????" Sure sure stick with that excuse.
Think anyone will buy it?

http://download2.legis.state.ak.us/DOWNLOAD.pdf

Posted by: feastorafamine | October 13, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Well, I'll take your HUSSEIN reference as a religious smear - what are you trying to prove? It's sad that we can't have a civil discussion.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, that last comment by "JakeD" was actually me replying to JakeD.

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Not only is Palin a liar, she can't even do that well. Shame on McCain for nominating her and on anyone who supports her.

Posted by: Michael Stout | October 13, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
Has Already Received His PERSONAL BAIL-OUT

Under Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s .. Former leadership at
Goldman Sachs, the company has been instrumental to its penetration of Western
capital and other markets. - - Henry Paulson was vastly effective in Communist
China’s .. Interests and enabling their access to Western economic assistance
and high technology

In late January 2006, Goldman Sachs purchased a stake in the Industrial and
Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China’s biggest bank, for $2.58 billion
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson''''s .. Personal stake .. In this transaction
was $25 million

A PERSONAL BAIL OUT for : Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and His
Criminal Friends

(Mar 27, 2008 (ruters.com) BBC) ... White House Resists Pleas for .. Mortgage Bailout
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As clamor rises for federal help for homeowners
who face losing their homes .. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson .. Seems
to be digging in heels against the effort.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Paulson sounded a tougher note than ever against any
possibility of bailout for individual mortgage holders, singling out the growing number
going "under water" as their loans exceed the diminishing value of their properties.

THEY ARE BUYING THESE MORTGAGES FOR 6.75 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR. PEOPLE, NOW DO YOU SEE WHAT THEY DOING.

SO YOUR HOUSE YOU JUST BAUGHT FOR 300,000 AND THEY AND YOU THINK IT WAS A STEAL. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

TO STOP ALL THE BLEEDING THEY NEED TO DO THE FOLLOWING.

STOP ALL FORCLOSEING NOW ASAP.
THEN ANYONE THAT BAUGHT A HOME OR REFI A HOME FROM 2001 UNTIL 2008. THEY NEED TO JUST REFI THEM AT JUST ABOVE THE PRIME RATE, AND MINUS OFF 80 PERCENT OF THE PRINCELBLE AND START OVER .

THIS WOULD GIVE THE BOTTOM..AND OF ALL FORCLOSEING.

THEY WOULD ONLY DO THE HOMES THAT WAS USED FOR HOMES . NOT SOMEONE JUST LOOKING TO FIP.

THIS WOULD END IT. I HAVE BEEN SAYING IT FOR 5 YEARS NOW. IF THEY MANDATED IT 5 YEARS AGO WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS MESS NOW..

Posted by: DAVID | October 13, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The Palin Effect is taking down McCain. If he had choosen a qualified VP, we might have an interesting election.

Posted by: Hoffmann | October 13, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Please educate yourselves - google Palin and the A.I.P.
Google Palin and Joe Vogler
Google Palin Chryson and Stoll
Googal Joe Vogler and Iran
Please take the time to find out who is really involved with current American terrorists....
Just a little dot connecting....Joe Vogler founded the A.I.P. - to which Todd Palin was a card carrying member until 2002 (belonged for 7 years) Sarah attended and spoke at their events. Vogler was quoted as "Hating America and pushing for Alaska to become an independent nation. He was killed in a deal where he was buying plastic explosives - he had strong political ties to IRAN!! Chyson and Stoll are the big guys in the A.I.P. currently - they helped Palin in her election for Mayor and Gov. Both are known militia organizers and supporters....Come on guys this is very scary stuff...

Posted by: Rebecca | October 13, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

feastorafamine:

I already said I read the report.

Pete:

Why can't we have a civil discussion? It's not a religious "smear" as I would gladly vote for a pro-life Muslim even if his middle name were HUSSEIN. I'm not "proving" anything. Just want to make sure everyone knows the important facts.

Hoffmann:

If McCain had chosen Romney, he'd probably be behind by 20 points.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Who is Sarah Palin:

Palins mother (Sally Sheigam) was of Lithuanian Jewish heritage and so were both of her mothers parents (Louise Sheigam and Shmuel Sheigam). Her father Chuck Heath can also be considered of Jewish blood because his mother, Beatrice Coleman, was of Jewish decent. Further information on Governor Palin's ancestors can easily be found in the vital records in the Lithuanian State Historical Archives in Vilnius. http://www.archyvai.lt/ The Archives holds birth, marriage, divorce, and death records for the Lithuanian Jewish community from 1851 until 1915 when the Jews were required to leave the country because of World War I. They are in 18th Century Cyrillic script and Yiddish Many of these records include the mother's maiden name and town of registration.

I understand her mother, Sally, was raised as a Jew. Her father Chuck became an evangelical Christian however and Sarah has been raised in that tradition.

The fact the Sarah is Jewish by birth is no big deal, in fact I think it is fascinating. However, this is where it get scary – she has covered up the fact that she has Jewish heritage and in fact one of the rumors she started about her rival in her run for Mayor was that her competition (Mr. Stein) was Jewish, which was not true.

Sarah also has strong ties with the A.I.P. in Alaska. Joe Vogler started this party. Joe hated America and raged constantly regarding his hatred. He wanted Alaska to be an independent country and to secede from the USA. He stated his hate for the USA was as cold as the glaciers and that he refused to be buried under the American flag. He had close ties with Iran (I am not kidding!) Please Google Joe Vogler and Iran if you doubt this. Vogler was actually killed when a deal to purchase plastic explosives went bad!

The current big guys in the A.I.P. are Chryson and Stoll. They helped to get Palin elected as Mayor and as Gov. They enjoy a close relationship with the family. Todd belonged to the A.I.P. for 7 years, until 2007 and Sarah spoke at and attended their functions. It was Chyson and Stoll who helped Sarah spread the rumors regarding Stein. Both of these men have strong ties to white militia organizations.

So here we have a woman, ashamed of and hiding her Jewish heritage and attempting to smear and persecute someone else for being Jewish. Seems I remember another person who was ashamed of his Jewish background…whipped up crowds into Aryan frenzies, told half truths and played on peoples irrational fears…incited violent mob mentalities ….do we really want to go there again….

Posted by: Burt | October 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Rebecca:

My wife and I would have voted for Gov. Palin even if she was a card carrying member of A.I.P. You are aware that most Texans still think of themselves as a Republic too, right?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

She was within the "law" to "fire" whomever she wishes HOWEVER, she violated the ethical code by placing pressure on her subordinates for personal gain. There is no question about that. She needs a new spinner....! In my research and reading all that I can on her governorship in Alaska, I found there is another possible ethical issue in that she has used public monies to promote her religious views. I think it's just a matter of time before Pandora's box is opened by some Alaska citizens who know the real truth about how heavy handed Mr. and Mrs. Palin run "their" office. Read the entire report...it's scary. I'm an independent, Ohio, female voter and find Mrs. Palin seems more and more like "one of the 'ol boys". Now we know what a "wink and a smile really means" !

Posted by: Kat Colclasure-Ohio | October 13, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Burt:

So, I guess that means that smears against Obama using Ayers is an acceptable tactic?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

The world will think Americans are even more stupid if we go from Cheney to Palin.

Posted by: John | October 13, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Every time I see Sarah Palin, I think, "Hey, look ... Monica Lewinsky changed her name and got a new job!"

Posted by: Alex | October 13, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The worst part of the Troopergate scandal is that Sarah Palin allowed her husband to take such an overt role in haranguing Monegan to fire the ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Wooten. If Governor Palin allows her husband to wreak such havoc from the Governor's office, what will happen if Todd Palin's wife ever makes it into the White House? What sort of hijinks can we expect from Mr. Palin then?

As to what Governor Palin did wrong in this entire affair, while it is true that she had the right to replace members of her cabinet, that does not give her the right to wrongfully terminate any one of them. Clearly, the reason that Todd Palin and assistants to the Governor cited during their contacts with Commissioner Monegan was the desire to have Trooper Wooten terminated. Commissioner Monegan refused, citing a concluded disciplinary investigation against Trooper Wooten. It was then that Governor Palin retaliated against Commissioner Monegan by firing him. That is wrongful termination because it would depend on Commissioner Monegan violating a law or established policy in order to keep his job. I have no doubt that this investigative report will be the basis for a civil suit brought by Commissioner Monegan against Governor Palin, individually, and the State of Alaska. I also have no doubt that he will prevail on the facts.

In the midst of the cratering McCain campaign, the worst thing that they could have done was to issue their own "pre-report" and declare Palin to be blameless. It makes the McCain campaign appear afraid of the official report. It also makes them appear untruthful in light of the facts. And isn't that their big overwhelming concern these days? The truthfulness of the candidates?

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Kat Colclasure-Ohio:

Actually, there is a question about "personal gain" as there was clearly no financial incentive involved. Have you actually read the entire report? It's not "scary" to me, and I'm an independent, California, male voter ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

It is true that Sarah Palin has the legal right to fire any member of her cabinet. However the reason she gave for this firing were not the true reasons. whatever happened between her sister and brother in law happened more than two years ago. Yet she still kept demanding that he be fired. She even went after trying to stop him from receiving his pension. Involved in all of this was her husband who is not a member of her cabinet. She also had member of her staff go after him. On top of all of this is the fact that she has been using personal e mails instead of the states, doing this so that anything she does or says can not be traced. Why would yo want to do this if you were not trying to hide something? Several ex members of her staff have said that is you do not agree with her 100% of the time you can say goodbye to your job. And while she complains about Obama mixing with known terrorists her own husband has been connected to a group wanting to secede from the USA and the leader of that group has had some pretty nasty things to say about the US. And what's this about a preacher she uses who expels suspected witches? All available on tape. I mean, there is more to this woman than meets the eye.

Posted by: jean. | October 13, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Well I'm glad to hear you finally admit that “troopergate” is a "non-story". As you declare, Gov. Palin acted within her authority.

The REAL STORY:

Sen. Joe Biden, Vice-Presidential hopeful, clearly explains his ignorance when he was asked, during the V.P. debate, what the role of the Vice-President was!

Imagine that! This man wants to be VP and can't even describe the job correctly! Almost everything he said was incorrect according to the U.S. Constitution!

How is this overlooked? Is the press that ignorant of the U.S. Constitution?

Let this very example be proof that the skewing of the situation is well under way! The media devotes countless articles building up "troopergate" and the facts show it to be a non-story, totally irrelevant! All the while giving Biden a pass on not even knowing what a VP dose or where the authority comes from!

Come on people, pull your heads out and get some O2! It tends to help the thought process!

Posted by: Average American | October 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Palin continues to spout her non-reason and lies. What a ridiculous candidate for anything.

Posted by: jennifer | October 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

What sort of hijinks could we have expectd from Mr. Clinton had Obama picked Hillary as his VP instead of Biden? I doubt that Todd could do any worse.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

You wrote:

'I trust her "morals" more than I do Barack HUSSEIN Obama's, that's for sure.'

Are you really claiming that pointing out his middle name is not a smear? What other reason would you possibly have for doing that? Are you suggesting his middle name makes him a Muslim extremist? You do know he's Christian, right?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The report, which was approved for release by a panel consisting of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats, said:

"(Governor Palin) abused her power by violating Section 39.52.119(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act," which is worded as follows:

"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

Palin improperly used her offices and the powers of the state to pursue a personal vendetta. According to the statute, by doing so Palin violated the public trust. That is indisputable.

End of story.

Posted by: puakev | October 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

When I was very young I wanted a Chatty Cathy doll. I thought she was beautiful, and the idea of her talking was mesmerizing. My parents saved and she greeted me one Christmas morning. Yet after a week or two, her glamour faded, and I grew tired, bored and irritated with her predictable banter, and began to think that she was thoroughly dull. My initial attraction turned to extreme distaste Hmmmmmm. Chatty Cathy didn't wink, but she was equally as programmed as Sarah Palin.

Posted by: rebecca pelley | October 13, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Again - last JakeD comment was me responding to JakeD. I'll try to stop doing that.

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, what if things were switched around?

…..think about it.

Would the country’s collective point of view be different? Could racism be the culprit?

Ponder the following:

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?

What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?

What if McCain had only married once and Obama was a divorcee?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his standards?

What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?

What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?

What if Obama couldn’t read from a teleprompter?

What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?

What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama’s family had made their money from bootlegging, and later beer distribution?

What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?

This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

Educational Background:

Barack Obama: Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations. Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden: University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

Vs

John McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Posted by: Realista | October 13, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Why should anyone believe this report in the first place? Democrats on it want to nail Palin because she is running for V.P. Republicans, do you all forget, she ran AGAINST the Republican establishment in Alaska. She has NO friends from either party up there. What she does have is the support of the PEOPLE of Alaska, Palin has an 80% APPROVEL rating. What would politicans in D.C. give for that. This was a hit job on her from BOTH parties. She had the legal right to fire this guy and she did. Everything else is just the opinions of people who DON'T LIKE HER!!!

Posted by: rss | October 13, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Bush would love Palin!

She doesn't just spin the facts, she outright turns it around! Ta-da! It's almost like witchcraft!

Posted by: fy | October 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "Kay Decker: What sort of hijinks could we have expectd from Mr. Clinton had Obama picked Hillary as his VP instead of Biden? I doubt that Todd could do any worse."

I suppose we could have expected a balanced budget if Bill made it back to the White House as spouse of the VP ... or at least more balanced than we've been getting these last 8 years. I'm sure that Todd Palin could do some pretty serious damage, since he readily admits that his wife has no idea what is going on in her own gubernatorial office. It's a good thing that there is only a very, very slim chance that Todd Palin will ever make it into the White House, except perhaps as a visitor taking a tour.

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Apology accepted, Pete. I used "HUSSEIN" just like I use SIDNEY or LOUISE to teach little-known facts. No nefarious motive whatsoever. I think they are important to know, but I also like watching "Jeopardy" too. Having said that, only God knows for sure whether Obama is a Christian. It is not a "smear" if I would vote a Muslim for President (see above). Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I am so baffled at those who complain that, if Dobbs' doesn't accuse McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden of lying equally, he must be "biased". The truth is not neutral between right and wrong! This idea that "fair and balanced" simply means giving each sides of an argument equal time to parrot their talking points, regardless of whether one is objectively more "right" than the other, is destroying political discourse in this country.

The report, given unanimously by a commission of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats, concluded that Sarah Palin unlawfully and unethically abused her power. That's a simple, objective fact. That's what the report said. Period. Now, you can perhaps disagree with the report -- that's fine. But it is NOT fine to claim the report "exonerated" Sarah Palin. Because the report did not do that. It objectively, factually, did not do that. So for Palin to claim that it did exonerate her, yes, objectively, fairly, unequivocally, that makes her a liar.

Posted by: John A. | October 13, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Realista:

My wife and I would still vote McCain-Palin. One note, however, McCain has apologized for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal and, since then, has been a champion of campaign finance reform. Actions speak louder than words, my friend.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

John A:

The Report also states that Gov. Palin was within her legal right to fire Monegan, EVEN IF she did so in part because he didn't bow to pressure to sack the trooper.

You don't think it's just a "little" biased to have a FEATURED ITEM on McCain dated May 23, 2008? Neither Obama nor Biden have done ANYTHING worthy of that designation since then? Really?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

You can read the full report at www.adn.com. Ms. Palin indeed had the right to fire Monaghan, which was never in dispute--he served at her pleasure.

However, she was found guilty of abuse of power--which is violation of Alaska law. She abused her power by using her public office to lobby to get Trooper Wooten fired--after Mr. Wooten had already been given due process which resulted in time off without pay.

She abused her power and now that the investigation is completed, this is no longer in dispute.

Now, the Palin camp is accusing the report as biased. Mr. Branchflower and Mr. Monaghan are public servants who served honorably and faithfully. Ms. Palin continues to publically eviscerate those who stand in her path.

She is a misguided, overly ambitious person who continues to thoroughly disappoint and embarrass Alaskans who once supported her. Until she was named VP, we didn't know how shallow and ignorant she is.

Her race baiting on the campaign trail is disgusting.

When McCain asked her to serve as his VP, she should have blinked and said, "thanks, but no thanks."

Posted by: Rose in Alaska | October 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I don't believe you. Every one already knows his middle name. You can't both say you meant nothing by "HUSSEIN" and then question his religion:

"Having said that, only God knows for sure whether Obama is a Christian."

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

JakeD must have "D" as his middle name because he likes to emphasize middle names, writing them in capitals, in particular.

What's your last name JakeD? Passive-aggressive? (cough *No nefarious motive whatsoever* cough)

Posted by: fy | October 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh well, looks like I keep making the same mistake.

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Todd Palin as a citizen of Alaska is within his rights to talk to the Commisioner Monnegan about a bad state trooper. It says that on the Alaska's Attorney General website in the section of what to do when as a citizen you have a problem with a state trooper.

Posted by: T-bone | October 13, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Rose in Alaska:

It's an ethics issue only, she can't go to jail over it, at worse, there's a $5000 fine. Rehardless, my wife and I already voted for McCain and Palin.

Pete:

You are sure that everyone" of the six billion people on earth know Obama's middle name?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama: Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations. Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden: University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

_____

Yeah and George W. Bush has a degree from YALE while Ronald Reagan had one from Eureka College and Harry Truman never even earned a college degree. Education is important but LEADERSHIP isn't defined by a degree.

Posted by: rss | October 13, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

rss, she does not have an 80% approval rating in Alaska, while high, it is 65% as of last week and slipping. More importantly, she has caused her disapproval ratings to climb from 12% to 30%. As an Alaskan, I am thoroughly disappointed in her.

Posted by: Rose in Alaska | October 13, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "My wife and I would still vote McCain-Palin. One note, however, McCain has apologized for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal and, since then, has been a champion of campaign finance reform. Actions speak louder than words, my friend."

But, clearly, Barack Obama has nothing to apologize for. Why should anyone expect one man to apologize for the actions of another? Especially when those actions are so far out of the control of the other individual? It is absurd that anyone would think that Senator Obama had the ability to control anything that William Ayers ever did. And if people are going to demand apologies, when is John McCain going to begin apologizing for Walter Anenberg's affiliation with William Ayers?

You have made it quite obvious, JakeD, that you would vote for the McCain-Palin ticket no matter what. Regardless of how ill-conceived their vision for America is, you are clearly voting (or have already voted for) McCain-Palin. That's fine since every American adult has a right to vote any way that he/she sees fit, but you do make it seem as though your vote is cast with no regard as to the facts. To my way of thinking, that is fanaticism.

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

fy:

My middle name is MOORE. What is your middle name?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

A Republican denies reality and keeps saying the same false thing over and over again??? Are we talking about WMD's in Iraq? Obama is a Muslim? The economic crisis was caused by Democrats? Bush served honorably in the Alabama Nat'l Guard? Which is it? Oh, a new one. Moose-hunt Barbie didn't abuse her office? The 10 to 4 Republican bi-partisan commission that was set up before she was even considered a s a VP candidate was a political attack by the Obama campaign?

More kool-aid please.

Posted by: thebob.bob | October 13, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

Obama should apologize for LYING (or, as Mr. Dobbs prefers, telling the truth slowly) about his own relationship with Ayers. Also, if McCain or Palin were not pro-life, we wouldn't have voted for them. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

As a registered idependent let me say that this story is another example of the hypocrisy that is ruining the current version of the Republican party.

All true conservatives should be ashamed. Palin did not break any laws but it is clear that she was found to have violated the ethics standards of the state of Alaska.

Its amazing to me that Republicans who are supposedly so against government and its overreaching power would simply dismiss a Governor using her political power to pursue a PERSONAL AGENDA. Thats the problem here. You cant just fire someone because you dont like them or have personal issues with them.

Even more troubling in my opinion is that Palin said she would cooperate fully with investigation then did the complete opposite. She then flat out lied about the findings of the report.

Yet, all of her supporters can do is blame the "liberal" media and sling mud at Obama.

Its a shame that the greatest country on Earth is filled with so many ignorant people who would rather blindly follow than take time to think for themselves.

Posted by: Common Sense | October 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

rss:

Thank you for your posts. Keep up the good work : )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - I'm sure it really doesn't matter if all 6 billion people know Barrack Obama's middle name. However, the several million people who will be voting in the US most likely do. And again, why would you point it out?

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

JakeD says that "it is an ethics issue only." Well, garsh darnit and golly gee wiz, where I come from, we consider ethics in a VP candidate pretty darn important. She continues to disappoint Alaskans.

Posted by: Rose in Alaska | October 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone realize what caused the "Abuse of Power?" She allowed her husband to use her staff and her office to try to get her ex brother-in-law fired. I guess people don't read everything. They only read what they understand (or not). Unless you know the full story, you cannot pass judgment. If McCain/Palin are elected, who will use her office and for what reasons?????????????

Wake up people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pat G.

Posted by: pat galloway | October 13, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Realista,

What if Obama had any relevent experiance that would lead a rational person to think he was qualified to be President? Like McCain dose...

What if Biden actually knew what the role of the V.P. is aRealista,

What if Obama had any relevant experience that would lead a rational person to think he was qualified to be President? Like McCain dose...

What if Biden actually knew what the role of the V.P. is and where the authority comes from? Like Palin dose...

What if Obama had a record of bi-partisanship which is how we will get out of this subprime loan fiasco, like McCain dose...

What if Obama had ever put his country first and served the nation by putting his life in peril, like McCain did. Obama chose to put his career in law school ahead of all else.....

What ifs are what ifs, the facts are:

Obama has no relevant experience to be President, especially a war-time President facing a national economic crisis that demands a bi-partisan response. Obama only votes according to the Democratic Party, he is a Party puppet!

Obama has no qualifying Presidential attributes to the average American. When we look for something there is only a disturbing history of poor choices to be found (Ayers, Party Surrogate, no experience…).

An objective look at our national situation, world situation and the candidates leads to but one determination, Vote McCain/Palin. We have too much to lose to play at “Affirmative Action” by putting an under qualified person in the White House so France will like us…

It’s time for adult decisions, the rosy skies of Social Engineering are for another time, not now.
nd where the athourity comes from? Like Palin dose...

What if Obama had a record of bi-partisenship which is how we will get out of this subprime loan fiasco, like McCain dose...

What if Obama had ever put his country first and served the nation by putting his life in peril, like McCain has.......

Posted by: Average American | October 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Common Sense:

Have you even read the report?! She didn't lie. Gov. Palin cooperated fully with investigation until left Alaska to, you know, CAMPAIGN for the Vice-Presidency. She has been understandibly a little busy these days. How about she agrees to go back to Alaska on November 5th and talk to any legislator who wants to ask her any questions?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

G. H. W. Bush = Liar
Reagan = Liar
G. W. Bush = Liar
Cheney = Liar
Rumsfeld = Liar
Ashcroft = Liar
Gonzalez = Liar
McCain = Liar
Palin = Liar
Republicans = Liar

Posted by: Richard | October 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

How many pinnochio's do you give Yourself:

Whether or not the Branchflower report -- which was launched by a bipartisan committee -- was a partisan smear job is debatable.

*********************

Investigator Steven Branchflower admitted he had ceded control of his subpoena list to Sen. Hollis French (D.) during Alaska’s Joint Judiciary Committee September 12 hearing that was scheduled to approve subpoena requests. [CLICK HERE FOR AUDIO.] French is a partisan who has endorsed Palin’s Democratic presidential ticket rival Barack Obama for president and is actively supporting his candidacy.

Lawmakers approved 13 of Branchflower’s subpoena requests that day, which included one for Palin’s husband, Todd. Four other subpoenas were approved for aides Branchflower believes participated in a meeting called by Palin’s former chief of staff Mike Tibbles where Wooten’s firing was allegedly discussed.

Rep. David Guttenberg (D.) asked Branchflower why he was requesting subpoenas for only those people attending the meeting and not Tibbles himself.

Branchflower said he would “have to defer that question to Mr. French.”

“I put the list together with, talking to Mr. French,” Branchflower added.

or that Todd Palin's statement seemed to have been ignored.

Sarah Palin’s abuse of power stems from her INACTION, meaning she did little or nothing to stop her husband Todd from pushing the issue.

However, a sworn affidavit, Todd Palin says Sarah told him to “drop it”:

Posted by: Bill_Szym | October 13, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Realista, (it helps if I read my posts first...)

What if Obama had any relevant experience that would lead a rational person to think he was qualified to be President? Like McCain dose...

What if Biden actually knew what the role of the V.P. is and where the authority comes from? Like Palin dose...

What if Obama had a record of bi-partisanship which is how we will get out of this subprime loan fiasco, like McCain dose...

What if Obama had ever put his country first and served the nation by putting his life in peril, like McCain did. Obama chose to put his career in law school ahead of all else.....

What ifs are what ifs, the facts are:

Obama has no relevant experience to be President, especially a war-time President facing a national economic crisis that demands a bi-partisan response. Obama only votes according to the Democratic Party, he is a Party puppet!

Obama has no qualifying Presidential attributes to the average American. When we look for something there is only a disturbing history of poor choices to be found (Ayers, Party Surrogate, no experience…).

An objective look at our national situation, world situation and the candidates leads to but one determination, Vote McCain/Palin. We have too much to lose to play at “Affirmative Action” by putting an under qualified person in the White House so France will like us…

It’s time for adult decisions, the rosy skies of Social Engineering are for another time, not now.

Posted by: Average American | October 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

rss said: "Palin has an 80% APPROVEL rating"

Well, there ya go.... Real politicians rely on APPROVAL ratings!

Posted by: limey | October 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Pete

At least you got your name right this time. I already told you that I enjoy teaching important facts -- I'm a trivia buff -- YOU were the one who claimed "everyone" knew his middle name. Now, you want to revise and extend your remarks, limiting it to only registered voters? There's still at least one registered voter who doesn't know his middle name. Did you watch 20/20 on Friday? Some Obama voters didn't even know how many Senators or STATES we have, for God's sake!

Rose in Alaska:

Can we at least agree she's a little busy right now?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

this is the strangest denial i've ever seen. its just assuming that the report does not, in fact matter, and the conclusions were what Palin wanted it to be.

I mean, what the hell is the point of a report like this if people just ignore it and say what they want. This is exactly what fact checking is for.

Posted by: mikeb | October 13, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Limey:

She has made enemies in her own party by exposing corruption wherever it is. If all 10 Republicans are voting for Obama, or indeed believe that Gov. Palin is a witch, would THAT qualify as a "witch hunt" to you?

Pat G:

Who would have used had the Office of Vice President if Obama had picked Hillary as instead of Biden? Again, I doubt that Todd could do any worse.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Person A: The report says Sarah Palin was guilty of abuse of power.

Person B: But, the report says Sarah Palin was within her rights to fire who she wanted.

Why, in this scenario, are all the Person B people insisting that, since Sarah Palin was found innocent of one of the charges, that negates the fact that she was found guilty of the other charges?

O.J. Simpson was found guilty of robbery. But he was found innocent of murder! Therefore, he must not have done the robbery either, right? And he'd be completely within his rights to say "since I was found innocent of murder, that proves I have never broken the law"?

Posted by: John A. | October 13, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

mikeb:

The Report states that Palin was within her legal right, EVEN IF she did so in part because he didn't bow to pressure to sack the trooper. Are you going to claim I just made that up too?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

Yes, I read the report and honestly what I read makes me much more critical of Todd Palin than Sarah.

But she did not fully cooperate with the investigation as she said she would. And please spare me the campaign argument. She could easily have flown back to Alaska for a day or set up other forms of communication. Thats not an excuse.

As for lying. She flat out LIED when she characterized the report as saying that it found that there was "no hint of any kind of unethical activity." Thats a LIE because the report clearly states that she violated the ethics standard.

A better question would be did Palin read the report.

Posted by: Common Sense | October 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

John A:

Because, if Gov. Palin was within her legal right to fire Monegan, then I would argue there is NO legal claim that she abused her power. Seems simple enough to me, but YMMV. Now, back to the The "Fact" Checker bias, can you answer my questions:

You don't think it's just a "little" biased to have a FEATURED ITEM on McCain dated May 23, 2008? Neither Obama nor Biden have done ANYTHING worthy of that designation since then? Really?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm shocked that the MSM has not put this in the "serious" category. Lotta talk about Main St. and Wall St., but this should be on Front St. Especially since Palin's only been scrutinized for 2 months. Little is known of her, and we have an election in 3 weeks. Yikes! This woman could be president of the United States, and her conduct practically parallels what is known in harassment law as "creating a hostile environment." Consider this…….A boss pressures an employee to do, let's say, illicit or illegal acts, and that employee resists. As a result they are fired. Now is there any question that a boss has the authority to terminate? Of course not, but the reason for termination becomes even more significant, which is why Palin floundered back and forth to find one. Pressuring the Police Commissioner to carry out her personal agenda is abusive, foul, and as the report states a "betrayal" of the public trust. Not to mention placing her subordinate administrative staff in the same predicament. That's illegal and a clear violation of Alaskan state law. Oh, and don't forget her blatant refusal to answer a court-ordered subpoena, and knowingly involve a non-govt. official (1st dude) in reinforcing that hostility. Worse yet, she's either trying to deny it or doesn't realize her infringement, which equates to deceptive behavior on one end of the spectrum and absolutely clueless on the other. Get real! Either way, she's not VP material. It's time to stop being a low-information voter and really weigh the choices before you. McCain doesn't have to die for her to assume office. He could God forbid, have a stroke, undergo rigorous chemo, or become incapacitated in some way. You could wake up one day, and OMG, Tina Fey is President. God help us all. 5 Pinocchios

Posted by: Big T | October 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

I can only hope that Alaskans now KNOW, without a doubt, that Palin is NOT fit to be elected their dog-catcher let alone their Gov. She is inflicted with what is commonly known as 'CONGENITAL LIARS' disease and people NEVER recover from that. So if Alaskans did NOT realize when she answered questions asked at the Gibson and Couric interviews, they should have no question now with Branchflower's report about her fitness or ability to be in public office there or anywhere else in this nation.

CONGENITAL LIARS are not worthy to hold menial jobs so she should never be elected to any public office again. Let her see what it really means to be "middle class" like she claims she is now but she has obviously forgotten or is LYING AGAIN!

Posted by: Josephine | October 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Well there was no monetary gain, so it's OK.

Yeah, I slit that guy's throat but I didn't get any money - it's cool!

Posted by: Bud | October 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Common Sense:

I'm sure she read the Report, or at least the part that stated Gov. Palin was within her legal right to fire Monegan. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

Am I reading correctly that you are saying that Todd Palin could do no worse than President Clinton.

Wow! You cant reason with that kind of thinking.

Posted by: Common Sense | October 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Branchflower was hired as Special Investigator for the Legislative Council which was investigating the firing of Monaghan. It is the legislature's responsibility to investigate such matters. It is one of the things we elect them to do.

Bill-Szym is wrong in his conclusions. The legislative council is comprised of mostly Republicans and they unanimously released Branchflowers report which said Sarah abused her power.

Hollis French is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as such, was the interface between the Legislative Council and Mr. Branchflower.

I've never posted on one of these before, but I disappointed that their isn't more critical thought before posting comments.

Posted by: Rose in Alaska | October 13, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Bud:

Murder laws have no requirement of financial gain -- you are comparing apples to oranges -- what part of "Gov. Palin was within her legal right to fire Monegan" don't you understand?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Jake D you just keep repeating the same talking point and ignoring other legitimate issues and saying "next canard."

You should try to get a job ith the McCain campaign. You couldnt do much worse.

Posted by: Common Sense | October 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Rose:

If all 10 Republicans are voting for Obama, or indeed believe that Gov. Palin is a witch, would THAT even qualify as a "witch hunt" to you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Common Sense:

What "issue" do you think I've ignored on this thread? You still haven't answered my questions to you:

1) Have you even read the report?!

2) How about she agrees to go back to Alaska on November 5th and talk to any legislator who wants to ask her any questions?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

One of the things that I found most disturbing about Palin's long term vendetta against her former brother-in-law was that over the course of the past three years a judge had to warn the Palin family to cease their harassment of the trooper. This happened numerous times and long before Palin rose to national prominence. So, now I suppose Palin supporters will claim that Obama traveled back in time and forced the judge to make those partisan statements. Poor Sarah.....no body understands her in the big, bad media.

Posted by: jain thorne | October 13, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

She is no way fit for office. There are people in her own state that think she is an idiot.

Here is a website that shares all the Sarah Palin dirt to support Barack Obama!

Posted by: beingajoe | October 13, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

I interpret personal gain as using office to get something that you want. It doesn't have to be financial since financial/monetary gain is already stated.

So trying to get someone fired is a personal gain. The Governor can fire people in the cabinet but can't fire individual workers.

After trooper was not fired by state police for his actions the Gov. recouse should have been to say I think there is a process problem here, if state troopers do these things they need to be fired and that needs to be in the procedures.

Governors cannot on their own fire a state trooper or hire one.

Posted by: pensfans | October 13, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Jake D,

I answere both of those questions already. PAY ATTENTION.

I cleraly stated that I read the report AND that the campaign was NOT an excuse for Palin not to fulfill her promise to cooperate with the investigation. As I said, she could have gone to Alaska for a day OR set up some other form of communication.

And the relevant issues you are ignoring are what I brought up in my first post. The fact that she DID violate the ethics standards even though her actions were not found unlawful. And the fact that she mischaracterized the findings of the report.

More importantly Id like you to address the major hypocrisy of supporting a party that rails against the overreaching powers of government then simply dismissing the FACTS when a member of that party abuses their power for a personal agenda.

Posted by: Comon Sense | October 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

jain thorne:

Using perfect 20/20 hindsight, she should have reigned Todd in -- that's just the political reality of modern-day muckraking -- as I stated about, however, I would have protected my sister with a firearm personally.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Whether you support Palin or not, she has become an international laughing stock. America needs an international makeover. We are a trading nation as well as a military power. The rest of the planet will not take us seriously with Palin anywhere near the button. She also wants more power than Cheny!

And, for the millionth time, Palin was found guilty of abuse of power for allowing undue influence by her underlings and husband, NOT for firing Monegan. How confusing is this?

Posted by: Paxalot | October 13, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Comon Sense:

If you read the Report, you would not be claiming she "flat out lied". Regardless, pointing out she could have gone to Alaska for a day or some other form of communication being available does NOT answer "How about she agrees to go back to Alaska on November 5th and talk to any legislator who wants to ask her any questions?" except by implication. I want to make sure the record is clear, that's all.

As for the ethics standards, as I already stated, I believe the maximum fine is $5000 - just pay it and get on with the campaign -- as for the "major hypocrisy of supporting a party that rails against the overreaching powers of government then simply dismissing the FACTS when a member of that party abuses their power for a personal agenda" I am registered Independent and, as I stated repeatedly, I am not dismissing any facts.

Paxalot:

I could care less about what other nations think about us. Read the rest of my posts on the actual topic, and let me know if you have any other questions.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

I love the way the Repubs defend Palin by attacking Obama. The idea that you can always find a politician who has done something unethical is no defense of Palin, as someone here stated.

Palin is wholly dishonest, a real amateur, and spectacularly unprepared to be the VEEP or the President. Now she has been called out on it by Repubs and Democrats, and by the media too. Furthermore, McCain's choice of her as his running mate is totally reckless and selfish: his political career is more important than country.

Jake D: Can't imagine you are married. I couldn't listen to your racist, illogical views for more than 10 seconds. Perhaps your wife is hard of hearing.

Posted by: R U KIDDING??? | October 13, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

pensfans:

Governor Palin did not fire or hire a state trooper -- you aren't a voter, are you -- if so, please try reading the actual Report.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

R U KIDDING???:

My wife is not hard of hearing (I am though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Paging Jon Lovitz, OD or alannee:

You still around?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

poor JakeD is trying so hard.....but can't cut it..... I almost feel sorry for him...almost!

Posted by: tk | October 13, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Even if you can fire someone for "any reason", you still cannot fire someone for illegal reasons. Procedurally, she was within her rights to ask for a resignation letter, however if it can be shown that she did so for illegal reasons (even in part) as the report indicates, Monegan has legal recourse. And therefore Palin will find herself in court in the near future.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Jake D: You hypocrite! You use Obama's middle name to "teach little-known facts"???? No one needs a lesson from a racist, least of all you, and after repeating his middle name month after month, it's hardly a "little known fact."

You are such a liar!

Posted by: R U KIDDING??? | October 13, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "Kay Decker:

Obama should apologize for LYING (or, as Mr. Dobbs prefers, telling the truth slowly) about his own relationship with Ayers. Also, if McCain or Palin were not pro-life, we wouldn't have voted for them. Next canard?"

Obama has nothing to apologize for. Obama told the truth. Neither McCain nor Palin have the courage of their convictions to actually bring this up to Obama or Biden. Instead, they just use the Ayers nonsense to throw out as red meat to their rabid supporters.

Actually, John McCain is not pro-life ... except when it's convenient to try to garner a few votes. That's what the McCain campaign is using Palin for -- as a red herring to the faction of the Republican party that insists that their candidate be nothing more than pro-life. If McCain by some incredibly slim chance were to make it into the White House, you can expect from him exactly what you got from Bush: Absolutely no movement on overturning Roe v. Wade! Congrats.

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Good God,

JakeD goes on and on that somehow the report did NOT in fact state: Palin had "abused her power by violating Section 39.52.119(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act,"

Whether or not this is a big deal to you is a different matter. It is beyond stubborn to insist that it somehow cleared Palin of ethical violation(s).

To anyone else that is sick of JakeD's capitalized middle name syndrome – just give up… When Obama brought up the idea that people were fixating “on his funny name,” instead of actual ideas, JakeD could not admit that this was exactly what he himself (JakeD) was doing. JakeD will continual hide behind the intellectually dishonest idea that somehow the emphasis means nothing – he does it for everybody so somehow that make all the difference.

Give me a break JakeD!

Posted by: jolt | October 13, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

tk:

No need to feel sorry for me.

James:

As an attorney, I know that Monegan can sue anyone. Whether that survives the pleading stage is the real test.

R U KIDDING???:

You have to prove I am a "liar", "hypocrite" or "racist" first -- for the record, I use John SIDNEY McCain and Sarah LOUISE Palin's middle name too -- do you also think all six billion people in the world know Obama's middle name?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse


Anyone who refuses to fire a violent cop deserves firing. Good for her.

Posted by: Chicago1 | October 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Report abuse

jolt:

I never denied Finding 1 of the Report -- I am simply arguing that the other Findings are more important -- I also never said the emphasis on middle names "means nothing". As I said above (and previously) I enjoy teaching little-known facts.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Chicago1 -- I would have done much more than simply fire him -- nonetheless, Gov. Palin had other, budgetary reasons for firing Monegan. The Report concluded that Gov. Palin was within her legal right, EVEN IF she did so in part because he didn't bow to pressure to sack the trooper.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

As of September 2008, the world's population is estimated to be about 6.6 billion (6,600,000,000). If anyone can prove to me all of them know Barack HUSSEIN Obama's middle name, I would be more than happy to stop teaching that fact. Then, I would start asking why you are so ashamed of his middle name?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

2008 - Historical Campaign

1st time a Potus/Veep candidate team share the distiction:

ABUSE OF POWER

No change here!


Posted by: Voice of Reason | October 13, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

You want to talk about being moraly wrong? Palin praised a real life witch hunter. A "Minister" who publicly delared an old woman who read tarot card in a small african village a witch. She was told to repent or leave... when she didn't go he got together a group of over a hundred people to drive her away. How morally correct is that?

I am a practicing witch, not the tv hexing kind, but a beliver in the sanctity of nature and life. "And it harm none.." What rights would she want to let me have if she gained office?

Anyone who would condone the crime of real witch hunting has no right to call a this investigation one!

Posted by: Girl from Alaska | October 13, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama IS Pinocchio.
But since you are Daddy to the wooden puppet, you never call him on anything.. Additionally, you would need to dedicate a book instead of an article.

Posted by: Obama = Pinocchio | October 13, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

If a Police Officer were to TASER Obama's 10 YEAR OLD daughter, how FAST do you think they WOULD BE fired?

Posted by: Taser | October 13, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

blah.blah.blah. whine. obama ayers. blah. blah. palin is right. blah. blah. obama resko. blah.blah. terrorist. blah. blah. drill. blah. blah. country first. blah. blah.whine.blah.blah.

gop= greedy old people or girlie obnoxious prejudice.

enough said.

i will be smiling on nov.5 and palin will skulk back to alaska.

Posted by: Obama-Biden 2008 | October 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Girl from Alaska:

According to the Bible, that is the exact procedure to ask an unrepentant sinner to leave the church. MP

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Taser:

Good point.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "2) How about she agrees to go back to Alaska on November 5th and talk to any legislator who wants to ask her any questions?"

Come November 5, Palin (and McCain) will have plenty of time to do whatever they want!!! Gosh darn it, they can both take a cruise around the world if they want! You betcha! And I assume that Palin will have no choice but to head back to Alaska and finish out her term as governor. I wonder if all the self-flung manure that Palin covered herself with during this campaign will make her a one-term wonder?

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

I wasn't talking about a church... the woman was driven from her village! Luckily for me, being an American I have the right to choose any religion I want, do you think that is wrong to?

Posted by: Girl from Alaska | October 13, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

If you have descended this far in this discussion you have my sympathy. Ms Palin is a politician. Ms.Palin is not qualified to be president. The legislature of the great state of Alaska is competant to decide all concens on the report. The Republican Party ain't so grand anymore. Don't say you didn't know.

Posted by: f flintsone | October 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

What is very clear is that the "fact checker" isn't all that concerned about facts.

Did you even READ the report? It absolutely does NOT conlcude that Palin abused her power in the firing of Monegan, just that the Wooten situation was "likely" (translation: could maybe possibly have been) a contributing factor.

It was 300 pages of witchhunt central, full of guesses and assumptions, but completely devoid of proof and convincing evidence with respect to Monegan's firing. Listening to the media reports on it, I half expect John Cleese to declare that she turned him into a newt....

But keep calling people liars based solely on what you read in biased, sensationalized headlines. That's all most people seem to read, anyway. By all means... heaven forbid people who make it their CAREERS to tell other people what to think actually apply any standards of ethics of their own.

Posted by: Adam | October 13, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

The big burning question is this: If this trooper had never been involved with Gov Palin's sister, would the Gov and Gov-Hubby still have gone out of their way to have this guy fired?

Chances are pretty great the answer is NO. Why would they care?

If you think the answer is Yes, then you have a lot of growing up to do or you need to pull yourself out of "them thar hills" you live in and go to the town library and read up on current events. There isn't a law enforcement department who doesn't have an officer struggling with a bad temper and it is really rare when the Governor and especially a Governor-First Spouse gets involved.

The Palin's are nothing but thugs dressed in sheep's clothing - and not even educated ones at that. Isn't just the fact that the Palin's were involved with Joe Vogler enough for you? Palin got away with this once and she isn't smart enough to get it under control - her arrogance won't let her. Mark my word, she will exercise her "authority" again. But hopefully, it won't be on behalf of the American public and who will ultimately suffer.

Posted by: MC | October 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

One of us is going to be very disappointed on November 5th, that's for sure.

Girl from Alaska:

As a Christian, I think it's a mistake, and therefore, wrong to choose any other religion. Legally, you are free to do so, and even Vice President Palin could not change that.

f flintsone:

If you have any questions about MY posts, please let me know. |

Adam:

Thank you.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

The very first finding of the "troopergate" report unequivocally finds, and states, that Ms. Palin violated statutorily imposed ethical rules. For her to claim she was cleared of "any hint" of unethical activity is suggestive of a pathology that would render her unfit for office.

McCain made a mistake in caving to the forced pregnancy lobby when he chose her. I bet he regrets it now.

Posted by: Lawrence | October 13, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

The investigation was not fair and impartial. The lead investigator Branchflower has ties to Monnegan. You can't have a lead investigator who has ties to Monnegan and call it fair. He would be thrown off a jury for knowing Monnegan and having ties to him. Secondly not everyone on the panel agreed on her abusing power. Read the Anchorage Daily News after they announced that Palin abused power on Friday.

Posted by: Tbone | October 13, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

>>If a Police Officer were to TASER Obama's 10 YEAR OLD daughter, how FAST do you think they WOULD BE fired?

Well that is a stupid question and NO! That is not a good point. Taser, you are really stretching it. If my 10 year old daughter was tasered, the officer would be fired. First of all, children don't get tasered. Gawd - are you that desperate to make a point about a losing battle?

Posted by: Coastal | October 13, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

So you condone and aprove of the witch hunt conducted by Palin's minister? The same one who laid hands on her and helped her gain office.

Posted by: Girl from Alaska | October 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Lawrence:

The next finding make it clear that she didn't violate any laws. For instance, the Report states that Gov. Palin was within her legal right to fire Monegan, EVEN IF she did so in part because he didn't bow to pressure to sack the trooper. Someone made a great point, above, if an Illinois state trooper were to TASER Obama's 10 YEAR OLD daughter, how FAST do you think they WOULD BE fired?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Dobbs,

You just don't get it.

How does Palin have reasonable grounds to claim the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing'? Finding #1, the Abuse of Power, unequivocably states that she violated Alaska state statutes in pressuring subordinates and allowing her husband to use access to the governors office to pressure subordinates to fire Mike Wooten.
There is NO doubt that she VIOLATED the LAW in this finding.

Why does everyone gloss over this? Abuse of Power and violating the public trust could be cause for impeachment.

Instead, you blithly follow her logic(?) and allow her to ignore the blatant violation and instead focus on the firing of Monegan, which although infuenced by unethical behavior, was not by itself illegal.

You're as bad as the Republican spin doctors.

Posted by: Michael B | October 13, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "As of September 2008, the world's population is estimated to be about 6.6 billion (6,600,000,000). If anyone can prove to me all of them know Barack HUSSEIN Obama's middle name, I would be more than happy to stop teaching that fact. Then, I would start asking why you are so ashamed of his middle name?"

Oh, Jake, you believe yourself to be so clever ... when you are not by half! These wafer-thin excuses that you conjure up for trying to foment prejudice against Senator Obama would be comical if they weren't so scary as an indication of what sort of politics you approve of: the mud-slinging, guilt-by-association, fearmongering method of politics. You are just one of thousands out there that likes to go on and on and on about Senator Obama's middle name, as if somehow having the middle name "Hussein" makes him an Islamic radical or America-hating terrorist. The rest of the world has seen your type at all the McCain-Palin rallies. You're just like that guy who introduced the McCains at the rally last week that insisted on saying Barack Obama's middle name whenever Obama was mentioned. You're just like the rest of the slavering hate-filled crowd that booed every time that moron shouted "Barack HUSSEIN Obama." You're just like the little old woman at the recent McCain rally that believed that Senator Obama is an Arab. You're just like one of the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth mindless robots screaming "Kill him" and "Terrorist" at the McCain rallies. You think that others are stupid enough to buy into these ridiculous lies if you spew them long enough. Well, the polls are showing you how wrong that notion is.

I know that you like to present yourself as a learned individual who is capable of rational argument. But every time you give us the "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" nonsense, you prove yourself to be the exact opposite of a learned, rational individual.

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

McCain and Palin like to use the word "Maverick" to describe themselves. A maverick is a bovine without a brand.Both these people are well branded by the shady boys in the "back room".
You might say a maverick is a non conformist who doesn't follow the precepts of the herd.
However, these political "strays" are supposed to follow the ways of the taxpaying herd, that's what they are paid to do!
These two "mavericks" condemn Obama for his past associations, while shrugging off any mention of Keating and AIP. They are both proponents of shady government.
I really can't understand why they would receive any consideration from the citizens,who are not members of the back rooms in Washington.
Some say it's because of McCain's war record. That was a long time ago, and his Heroism will not pay your mortgage, or feed and educate your children today!
What electing them will do is buy another forgettable house for McCain, and give more power to a woman with a Napoleon complex. Better think awhile folks

Posted by: Albert | October 13, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Coastal:

Perhaps you should read the Report. Wooten indeed tasered a child.

Girl from Alaska:

Of course -- that's an internal church matter though -- I'm not saying that the government should get involved in witch hunting (on either side of the aisle or broom ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Obviously there are not a lot of theologians out there or else just a lot of ignorant and close minded individuals out there who really do not understand that Hussein is a Semitc name for "good."

How come nobody got their proper Republican tighty-whiteys in a bunch about General Omar Bradley? Omar is a name with an Arabic background.

You repos are in a losing battle. Your lying past has caught up with you all and you're drowning.

Posted by: SisterT | October 13, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Michael B:

At worse, she fell below an ETHICS standard -- no sanctions or further action was recommended -- have you even read the Report?

Kay:

I'm not the one "conjur[ing] up" anything -- try asking the witch if you need help with that -- BTW: I am one of MILLIONS, not thousands, out here who are going to vote for McCain-Palin. Deal with it. Why is it there's no foul called when I use the Republican candidates' middle names too? Are you ashamed of Obama's middle name?

Albert:

Please see my posts about Keating and A.I.P., above. Let me know if you have any questions for me.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

SisterT:

I also means "handsome one". I really don't understand why the venom for simply using the candidate's GIVEN middle name. Seriously, I thought that someone was going to shoot that police chief who used it here recently. Do you think that ALL of the McCain voters are "racists" too?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

>>Do you think that ALL of the McCain voters are "racists" too?

I could say that I think all of McCain voters are about as racists as all men named Hussein are evil. But we all know that both examples are ridiculous.

Posted by: SisterT | October 13, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Palin might as well have said that she was cleared in the kidnapping and death of the Lindburgh baby. While it may be quite true that she wasn't even born at the time, it has nothing to do with the fact that the report unambiguously found her to have violated the Alaska ethics statutes and to have abused her public office -- and said so in very plain English.

She is free to dispute the report's conclusions, but not to simply say it says what it does not. If ever four Pinocchios were fully earned and well-deserved, it is in this instance.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

JakeD I can't respect anything you have to say. Your mind is so closed off there is nothing left of it that debate. You can only repeat the things you believe, no matter how wrong or crule those things are. Do you have ANY idea how many people have suffered because of modern day witch hunters? Women and children who are being killed and even burned not once upon a time but today! You claim to be Christian, but you have do not follow the true teachings of that faith. Judge not least ye be judged... Do unto others as you would have done unto you...

You should revaluate your faith, you seem to have missed some of the key points.

Posted by: Girl from Alaska | October 13, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I think it is downright HILARIOUS that those who support the Obama, Pelosi, Reid crowd have the audacity to paint ANYBODY else as liars.

Want to claim they ALL lie? Fine... I have no beef with that one. It's probably true - but let's not delve into delusional hallucinations that the Democrats are some paragon of honesty and integrity. If you can claim that with a straight face, you deserve an Oscar.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I have trouble finding ANY Obama ad that fails to misrepresent the truth. They're certainly holding up their end of the stick quite well.

Easiest game of limbo... ever.

Posted by: Adam | October 13, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

lets give everyone everything. then everyone will be happy. change is what we need! i cant wait for change! i am reminded of hitler when i hear obama speak.
instead of change and giving everything to lazy people lets create new industries and jobs so that people can work to achieve their dreams instead of having a socialized primitive country where everyone expects everything to be given to them. not that mcain is that great but he is certainly no bush! the fact that he is white and republican doesn't give anyone except the most stupid the right to compare him to bush. listen to what these people are planning to do not what they do when they go home. who cares about their personal lives. vote based on what they plan to do.... think america!

Posted by: ethan | October 13, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Girl from Alaska:

The righteous man judges all things. That being said, I am not "judging" whether you or anyone else is witch, otherwise "bad", going to Heaven, etc. Maybe, it's better we agree to disagree though. Merry part.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a deal breaker. Having a liability like that on your ticket greatly reduces your chances of winning. Any politician, Republican or Democrat, can pander to their "base" by making a choice that appeals only the most radical elements in their respective parties. Don't think that wins elections.

Posted by: Hoffmann | October 13, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

If I were an (R) I really would not want to go toe to toe with the (D) on who the biggest liars are. The last eight years are good examples. Hell, I am still waiting on Gov Jeb Bush to come up with all of the ballots he sunk in the Florida swamps.

Dealing with the (R) is usually a ride of double standards and once caught they sweep the dirt under the rug while pointing at the (D) "Dont do as I do - do as I say." You all blabbed about how great a man GW Bush and now you all are quick to disassociate yourselves. I just get tired of being told the (D) are inferior and its time we speak up.

The American public is now aware of how dangerous Sarah Palin is. The (R) looked down their nose at Britney Spears younger sis getting knocked up, but now Palin's kid is like the immaculate conception - double standards. Palin points fingers at Obama about Ayers, yet what about her affiliations with the AIP/Vogler? She points fingers about wacky Rev Wright, but what about her wacky anti-voo-doo Rev.

I am sick and tired of the Republicans having it both ways and it's time that Palin takes her MLF two-faced racist arse back to Alaska and stay in Alaska.

Posted by: Siggy | October 13, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "I'm not the one "conjur[ing] up" anything -- try asking the witch if you need help with that -- BTW: I am one of MILLIONS, not thousands, out here who are going to vote for McCain-Palin. Deal with it. Why is it there's no foul called when I use the Republican candidates' middle names too? Are you ashamed of Obama's middle name?"

Actually, you use McCain and Palin's middle names exactly once in this thread, and only in an attempt to give yourself a pathetic excuse for using Senator Obama's middle name over and over again. But don't throw your back out, JakeD, trying to bend over backwards making excuses for your childish games. I (and I would guess, no one else posting here) expect nothing better from you. I don't expect you to be intellectually honest, nor do I expect you to see beyond your own ingrained prejudices that drive you to dwell on something so insignificant as a candidate's middle name. You have already stated that you are voting for the McCain-Palin ticket because Governor Palin is a pro-life candidate. So that is all that anyone can expect from you ... the painfully low limitations that you have set for yourself. All of that is fine. Just stop trying to manufacture more pathetic excuses for your behavior and just say it like it is: You believe Senator Obama to be a Muslim terrorist and you are trying to make other people believe that, too. Your nonsensical beliefs won't ever gain any traction, because Senator Obama is a good Christian man (you even heard John McCain say it this past weekend), and only the unthinking minority that is afraid of the "big bad wolves" could ever believe anything so absurd.

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

Somehow I don't believe you're an attorney.

The ability to fire for any reason, always excludes illegal reasons.

Monegan has an excellent chance of winning a legal case.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

JakeD

No, we're not ashamed of Obama's middle name. However, the connotation associated with "Hussein" is negative. There's no getting around it and we here all know it, as do millions of other people in the U.S. If there were a negative connotation surrounding "Sydney" or "Louise" and anti-McCain/Palin people insisted on using their middle names - specifically because of that negative connotation - you (and other supporters) would have a problem with it.


Posted by: candace | October 13, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I read the report, and it seems clear to me: She was cleared of legal wrong-doing and admonished for ethical violations.

"Abuse of Power" is a subjective assessment, and I think we can all make our own choice on that one ... and that choice can inform our vote if we like.

In that, I do not differ from JakeD substantially.

However, I see no evidence whatsoever that the investigation or its findings were in any way partisan. Quite the opposite, it seems that it was managed in a way as to mitigate partisan effects.

In that, I disagree with JakeD.

In my personal opinion, her actions constituted an unreasonable abuse of power, but she wasn't going to get my vote anyway merely based on issue differences. So her ethics hardly matter (to me).

Posted by: RPW2 | October 13, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Hoffmann:

As I pointed out, if McCain had chosen Romney, he'd probably be behind by 20 points. At least he still has a chance to win.

Kay:

I don't believe that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim terrorist -- on other threads, I've put the possibility that I am wrong about that very low, something approaching 1 to 2% -- and, I have used the other candidates' middle names (including Hillary's) on many, many threads here. Try Google if you don't believe me.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is really amazing. She is in a class all by herself.

There are liars, there are boldface liars and then there is Sarah Palin.

While the report clearly pointed out her unethical abuse of power, she could stand in fronts of hundreds or thousands of supporters and declare that she was cleared of any wrong doing. Just how thick is her face?

She probably hide the Troopergate issue from Mccain during the veting process. That shows how incompetent the McCain team is.

If McCain really knew about Troopergate issue and still decided to choose her as running mate, it shows the poor judgement of McCain.

It is perfectly okay for McCain to risk his chance of winning in choosing her. It is NOT okay for McCain to put the US in such a risk, specially at this time.

The US presidency is just simply out of her leaque.

Posted by: Julius | October 13, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - It all goes back to my original point. We have a moral obligation that exceeds legal boundaries. As a Christian, you should understand that. We shouldn't have to argue about legal minutiae.

If you expect the law to define exactly what is right, allowed, and expected, you are advocating a nanny state and the abolition of personally responsibility.

I believe Palin was wrong, regardless of the legal implications.

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

JakeD wrote: "I don't believe that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim terrorist -- on other threads, I've put the possibility that I am wrong about that very low, something approaching 1 to 2% -- and, I have used the other candidates' middle names (including Hillary's) on many, many threads here. Try Google if you don't believe me."

Excuse me, JakeD, are you actually saying that you believe there to be a 1-2% probability that Senator Obama is a Muslim terrorist?

You may have used another candidate's middle name in some previous thread, but I'm guessing that it's only when you're called out as a hatemonger (as in this thread) that you resort to doing it. Until then, you repeat Obama's middle name over and over and over again IN ALL CAPS until you are literally shamed into using the other candidates' middle names. That proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how disingenuous all of your pathetic excuses truly are.

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Palin is unprepared for VP AND dishonest. McCain picking Palin tells us a lot about how unsuited McCain is to be president.

Posted by: ACB | October 13, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

RPW2:

Expect to be called a "liar" or "racist" now. As for the bias on the Report, please see Bill_Szym's post (above) and keep in mind that Gov. Palin has gone after corruption by Democrats AND Republicans:

"Branchflower admitted he had ceded control of his subpoena list to Sen. Hollis French (D.) during Alaska’s Joint Judiciary Committee September 12 hearing that was scheduled to approve subpoena requests."

There's no doubt that French is actively suporting Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker:

Anything's possible.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

For crying out loud -- the trooper threatened to kill her Dad -- she heard it with her own ears -- is she just supposed to sit back and wait for it to happen? Give me (and her) a break.

Posted by: MajorTom | October 13, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I mean, it's POSSIBLE that the moon is made of cheese. It's possible that Obama will win on Election Day. It's possible that I really am Senator McCain and all that stuff about not using the Internet is just to throw you off the trail ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Julius:

Perhaps McCain knew that Gov. Palin was within her legal right, when he picked her, EVEN IF she did so in part because he didn't bow to pressure to sack the trooper. You know, just like the Report stated?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Major Tom - I agree the trooper was pretty bad, but you and I aren't able to pressure appointed officials when someone threatens our families. You tread a slippery slope when you allow those in power to begin abusing it.

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: I said before that you had to be shamed into using the other candidates' middle names. I take that back. You couldn't be shamed into anything because you have no sense of decency, no intellectual honesty, no self-respect, no moral integrity whatsoever. I feel sorry for you. You are a racist. A fearmongering, hatemongering, unthinking, venom-spewing, racist. I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Palin undeniably abused her power. It's a Republican tradition- Watergate, Iran/Contra, Cheney's secret energy task force, outing a CIA undercover agent in a political vendetta against her husband, and of course, the politically-motivated firings of US Attorneys for the "crime" of not allowing the Dept. Of Justice to be turned into a political arm of the Republican party.
Horrible stuff. Of course, part of being a good Republican is to NEVER admit that you've done anything wrong, no matter if the facts say otherwise.
To say that this report exonerates Sarah Failin' is as disingenuous as saying that the jury & judge exonerated Scooter Libby. It is true that when Libby was convicted on 4 felony counts, there was also 1 count on which he was acquitted. So, was Libby innocent or guilty? The facts say GUILTY. Only conservative partisans blinded by their own prejudice, like JakeD, defend the indefensible.
This is part of a larger issue. As this latest sordid chapter in "Hockey Mom comes to Washington" so clearly illustrates, Sarah Failin' is unfit for national office. Even worse, McCain is even MORE mentally unfit to be POTUS. His consistent pattern of rash, impulsive, reckless behavior has been amply documented in many places.
As an avid follower of politics for over 45 years, I can say with absolute confidence that their has never been a candidate for national office in this time who is more mentally unfit to be POTUS than McCain. Give him a chance, & he'll complete his mission of destroying our economy, our environment, our international alliances, and our civil rights.
Let all the single-issue "Right-to-Life" hypocrites (They don't respect life enough to support an assault weapons ban, medical marijuana, or adequate support for unwed mothers) get on their high horse & vote for McCain. The rest of the universe can see the light. That's why McCain's candidacy is sinking like a plane piloted by the candidate himself.

Posted by: Doctor B | October 13, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Kay:

I accept your apology.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Palin reduced her security detail after becoming Governor. Inconsistent with the belief that she felt threatened.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Palin is Pinocchio

Posted by: UncleRemus | October 13, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Yes, you are exactly the sort of spineless man that would gladly accept a woman's pity ... even if that pity is given to you because you are a pathetic, hatemongering, fearmongering, unintelligent, misunderstanding, emotionless void of a racist. I would call you a cockroach, but that is insulting a species that is far superior to the JakeD's of the world.

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Mr D : So sorry . I'm not really responding to you; just to the absurd state of politics. I merely mean to say that any politician is bound to have a questionable act or two on his/her resume. Ms Palin is an embarassment as a nominee in that she has not the type of seasoning one would expect for a political party which asnwers to the name Grand Old Party. Ethics charges have in the past proven an unreliable guide to practical political choices. Let us hope that when America votes the choiuce will rest on more general issues of import to us all.

Posted by: f flintstone | October 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Doctor B:

No, Gov. Palin did NOT undeniably abuse her power. Even if she did -- you only think Republicans do that -- perhaps you are unaware that Democratic Presidents do the same: Carter fired U.S. Attorney Marston for political reasons, Clinton was IMPEACHED for God's sake!

Off topic, of course, Libby was convicted and then had his sentence commuted for good cause. Another political "witch hunt" (sorry Girl from Alaska"). And, Thomas Eagleton was, by all objective standards, more mentally unfit than McCain or Palin. I would argue that Ross Perot was too ; )

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Palin, when faced with a guilty verdict of violating state ethics law, says " I didn't do anything wrong". I can't stop laughing.

Posted by: Vicki5 | October 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

You see, even I miss my own name once in a while ; )

Kay:

Learn to read better -- I accepted your apology ("") not your pity -- I am not a "racist" either. As I have stated on numerous threads, I would gladly have voted for a PRO-LIFE African American candidate, Ambassador Keyes, for instance.

f flintstone:

As you may have gathered, by now, I do not believe that Gov. Palin is an embarassment as a nominee -- she has more EXECUTIVE experience than all the other major party candidates, combined -- as I said, if you have any questions about any of that, please let me know.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous - absolutely, Democrats have done immoral and illegal things. And it doesn't change what Palin did in any way. Are you suggesting that if a Democrat does something wrong, it's ok for a Republican to do the same thing? That's moral relativism. Or, are you saying that you admire the Democrats by comparing Palin's actions to them? I doubt it.

If something is wrong, it's wrong when a Democrat does it AND it's wrong when a Republican does it.

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

For the record, Ms. Decker's apology: "I said before that you had to be shamed into using the other candidates' middle names. I take that back. You couldn't be shamed into anything ..."

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Saying that Ms Palin is the most experienced in executive matters begs the question as to whether executive experience matters.

Posted by: f flintstone | October 13, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

I already agreed with you that, just because her actions meet a legal standard, that does not mean they necessarily pass a moral standard. For instance, I would have personally defended my sister with a firearm. Doctor B, however, claimed that abuse of power was "a Republican tradition" conveniently leaving out the Democrats ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: You should learn to read at all, Jake. I never gave you an apology. I only stated how sorry I felt for you, because racists are always to be pitied. I pity you because you have very little in life that you find gratifying, so you are forced to lash out at others that are not like you that you perceive as your superiors. As I told you before, you are not as clever as you like to believe, not by half! You clearly stated that you actually believe that there is at least a 1-2% probability that Senator Obama is a Muslim terrorist. That makes you an unintelligent, unthinking, hatemongering, fearmongering, venom-spewing, racist. And for that I pity you. And I offer no apology for calling you a racist, or pitying you for being a racist. Are you capable of understanding that, Jake? Or does that bounce off your thick skull, as well?

Posted by: Kay Decker | October 13, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

f flintstone:

No, it doesn't "beg" the question -- that IS the question we will decide by November 4th -- the Chief EXECUTIVE heads the most powerful, largest and most expensive executive department in the world.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Again, for the record, Ms. Decker's apology: "I take that back" (after I proved you wrong with Google search). BTW: I am not a "racist" but I don't expect an apology for that falsehood.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Any "racists" reading this far down the thread:

Would you be willing to vote for Alan Keyes?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - actually, after you agreed with me, you said:

"As for Gov. Palin's actions, if there's a legal right to fire Monegan, there's no abuse of power in that regard. Next canard"

You called my argument a canard, and you said there is no abuse of power because Palin had the legal right to fire Monegan. I suggest there is an abuse of power because she has a moral obligation beyond the letter of the law.

As to your second statement, see my reply to Anonymous.

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

I know what I've said and the arguments I've made -- the "abuse of power" charge was completely subjective (as someone else pointed out -- that was my "Anonymous" post at 4:43 PM however.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - excellent, then we finally have an understanding.

Good day.

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

For the last time, Ms. Decker's APOLOGY: "I said before that you had to be shamed into using the other candidates' middle names. I take that back. You couldn't be shamed into anything ..." (Emphasis Added). I would have cut her off at that point, but, obviously, this is not the Colbert Report. Back to the Branchflower Report, RPW2, did you know about State senator, Hollis French?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

If your "understanding" is that I think Gov. Palin did anything wrong, you would be mistaken. What's next, you are going to say that Kay Decker didn't "apologize" to me?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

After reading some comments I think America deserves Palin. Ur already on your way down, all you ever think about is urselves, you deserve another uneducated (not illeterate) republican in the whitehouse. Bush-Palin would have made the perfect duo though.

Posted by: Aussie | October 13, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The findings of the investigator merely state that she should have done more than what she tried to do to avoid the situation. If you have never been subject to one of these types of so called investigations, grievance procedures and arbitrations they are completely politically motivated and are rushed through the process causing a great deal of evidence to be overlooked. The subpoenas for testimony quite often can be non-binding, meaning the individual cannot be forced to testify. Again unless you have been the subject of one you have no idea of the politics involved in trying to defend yourself against those who have an agenda.

Posted by: kalexander1 | October 13, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Aussie:

What does "not illeterate" mean? Is that the same thing as "don't misunderestimate" McCain-Palin?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

This is bizzare. American journalists are actually doing their job. I don't understand.

Posted by: dan | October 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

kalexander1:

Good point. Probably best thing for her to do is just pay the fine, admitting no guilt of course, and get back to the campaign. This is probably the most important election of our lifetimes (and I've voted in every one since Truman ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

dan:

Do you think that American journalists' job is to be "in the tank" for Obama?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Obama has received only ONE award of Four Pinocchios here, over a year long campaign that included many worse instances of lies from him than Palin:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/06/barack_obama_vs_lou_dobbs.html

Guess how many McCain and Palin have received?

FIVE!!!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/ratings/4_pinocchios/

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Aussie - so your contribution is to insult all of us based on the writings of some of us? Exactly how are you better? Is your ethnocentrism nobler than the political bigotry you find here?

Posted by: Pete | October 13, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

GUILTY AS CHARGED....

Governor Palin is a much worse HYPOCRITICAL LYING SCUMBAG than even Richard Cheney...

WHY IS SHE NOT REMOVED FROM THE REPUBLICAN TICKE...ERRR OOPS, THE ANSWERS IN THE SENTENCE....IT'S '....THE REPUBLICAN TICKET...' All crooks, criminals, murderers, theives and liars, CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN THESE THINGS MUST NEED APPLY...

FOUR PINNOCHIO'S? That's got to be a record.

Posted by: need4trth | October 13, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

In addition, as I have pointed out, the "FEATURED ITEM" is dated May 23, 2008. I guess having that up for FIVE MONTHS straight (when there have been other Obama or Biden whoppers since) is also your idea of "fair and balanced"? When McCain-Palin win, I just hope you all remember there's no excuse you can pin it on! I also pray there are no race riots.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

need4trth:

You only think that Republicans do that -- Robert Kennedy KILLED Mary Jo Koepke -- perhaps you are also unaware that Democratic Presidents abuse their power once they get into office too: Carter fired U.S. Attorney Marston for political reasons, Clinton was IMPEACHED for God's sake!

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I imagine you can find every governor in this country who would have done the same as she did. When Monehan (or whatever his name is) sent over the "trooper poster" which was a picture of her ex brother in law, he claims he didn't know....yeah, right.
As the report states, she has every right to fire anyone in her cabinet. They are there to serve her. The poster and his blatantly going behind her back to get funding for a program she vetoed were certainly enough justification to get rid of him.

Posted by: concerned08 | October 13, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

So now the Republicans are mad at the Democrats because state Republicans asked for the investigation and state Republicans found her guilty?

I think I saw this type of logic in an old Twilight Zone episode.

I thought I was getting tired of Dems blaming everything on Bush but I think the Republicans took that annoyance to the next level by blaming pretty much anything on the Democrats even when they have zero involvement.

Next time I do something wrong I’ll blame it on the Democrats and the “Liberal” media (this is also a headline story on FoxNews so they must be liberal too).

Posted by: Southeasterner | October 13, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

What's that cracking sound??
Oh, crap, it's the sound of the growing nose breaking through
that 'glass ceiling'!

Posted by: RuffNReddy | October 13, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

What would be interesting is if Clinton v. Jones would apply to Monegan's suit going forward after January 20, 2009. It is clear that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for actions unrelated to his office (having occurred before he took office). This has never been decided as to a sitting VICE President, however. Indeed, the Supreme Court, specifically, did not address two important Constitutional issues not encompassed within the questions presented by the certiorari petition: (1) whether a claim comparable to the (Vice) President's claim of immunity might succeed in a state tribunal, and (2) whether a court may compel the (Vice) President's attendance at any specific time or place.

I would like to see that oral argument.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

I think most people aren't reading the report correctly. What the report said was that: PROCEDURALLY, there was nothing illegal about how Palin asked Monegan for his resignation. However, if there were illegal reasons for doing so (even in part), Monegan has legal recourse to sue for illegal termination. And if there were illegal reasons for the firing (as the report found) then the firing itself was illegal (while the PROCEDURE of firing may have been the standard one).

The same is true of the Federal Attorney firings, and that ongoing investigation.

While the Federal Attorneys could be fired for "any reason", they cannot be fired for illegal reasons.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

What's with all the dancing around? Why can't you just say that she lied? If it is "the reverse of the truth" for Palin to say she was cleared of any wrongdoing (which she did), then that's lying. Or are you only able to use the word when quoting McCain's smears against Obama (see the article entitled "Did Obama 'lie' about Ayers?"

Posted by: Jones | October 13, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Paging Jon Lovitz, OD or alannee:

You still around?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Jones:

Please read my posts -- Gov. Palin did not LIE -- she was "cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity". Apart from that, Mr. Dobbs never claims to know the "intent" and therefore cannot say it was a "lie". Read "About our rating scale" for more info.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

“Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional” is one of the best lines that I have read, and so very true. I question how Sarah Palin can show her face to the great people of Alaska. How can she look them in the eye? How can the people of Alaska ever trust her again? How can she face her family, her friends and her supporters? How can Sarah Palin smile and pretend that she has not told so many, many, many lies to the American People but worst to the people of Alaska. Sarah Palin should consider removing her name from the GOP ticket and stepping down as the Governor of Alaska. But she will not for she adores the crowds and the lights of Hollywood on her. But the bottom line is that one is ethical or one is not and now it has been proven that not only is Sarah Palin not ethical she is attempting to entice hate among the crowds as she continues to spew her lies. Perhaps her pastor should cast her into the water to see if she floats or sinks.

Posted by: Valdar | October 13, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

You guys really can't read past "Finding Number One" can you? I guess it's too much to expect for you to read the entire Report. I already agreed that the Report (subjectively) found a breach of ethics. We simply disagree about that. Regardless, Finding Number Two states:

"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, 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."

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Valdar:

Did you ask any of those same questions about Bill Clinton -- probably not, since he was a Democrat -- you do know that he was even IMPEACHED, right?

Pete:

Yes, I know that two wrongs don't make a right, but the Democrats who defended Clinton while now attacking Palin are at least being hypocritical.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Also, any "racists" out there:

Would you be willing to vote for Alan Keyes?

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/38/102738-004-B491A004.jpg

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Girl from Alaska:

What did you think about the suggestion that Palin's pastor "should cast her into the water to see if she floats or sinks"?

Valdar:

Once upon a time, I asked the following questions. How can President Clinton show his face to the great people of America? How can he look them in the eye? How can the people of America ever trust him again? How can he face his family, his friends and his supporters? How can he smile and pretend that he has not told so many, many, many lies to the American people? He should consider stepping down as President of the United States.

Did you ever ask THOSE questions?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Dear Pete
I was a proud republican and hate to admit it now, but I voted for Bush the first time but certainly not the second time. And I was a McCain supporter until he selected this Palin for his VP. I found it an insult to the American People and a political act for women votes. I am disappointed in McCain, no disappointed is not the word, but insulted by McCain and Rove. So yes, I asked the same questions of Clinton, but at least he directed the country well. Palin is dangerous and should not be near the White House and should be removed from the ticket and as governor of Alaska. You see I am one of those ultra rights but with a sense of honesty and think this is just too dangerous for the American People. So once again, I am forced to vote against my party.

Posted by: Valdar | October 13, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Kay Decker you said it so well. Far better than I did. Thank you.

Posted by: jean. | October 13, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

If you understand labor laws, even in an "at will" state, where you can hire and fire "at will" for any reason; if you provide any reason at all, or if your reasons can be clearly inferred, you will be in legal trouble if that reason was not a legal one (such as race, religion, sex, political views, insubordination in the execution of an illegal directive, etc.)

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Valdar:

I doubt you are registered Republican and supported John SIDNEY McCain "until" he picked Sarah LOUISE Palin.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Sorry you missed it but, the reason Monegan was asked to take a different position was because he was told not to take a junket to D.C. to lobby for a pet project of his. The trip was initially approved until it was discovered what he proposed to do, then he was told not to engage in that activity, and he went ahead and did it anyway, he lost his job because the Governor wanted lobbying activity coordinated through her office, rather than Monegan freelancing. The lady who appointed the commitee is a political enemy of the Governor, which is something you get when you break-up a corrupt political system.

As for Mr. Dobb's "Fact Checking" Obama-Odinga, Obama-ACORN, Obama-Ayers, Obama-Rezco, all allies, all odious. I had thought he was just an inexperienced pol, but it turns out he's a Chicago crook.


Posted by: Curtis Miller | October 13, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

She is now a proven liar.

Posted by: lndlouis | October 13, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

James:

What part of "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" don't you understand?! If it was for some illegal reason ((such as race, religion, gender), it wouldn't be PROPER.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

P.S. Are you the same "James" who doesn't believe I was a lawyer? Did you see my post (above) re: Clinton v. Jones?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

lndlouis:

Which "lie" is that?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

JakeD.....unfortunately it is true...but I must say another turning point was when my older brother, a former POW and on 100% disability, came out strong against McCain...I could not understand why as service has always been valued in my family, as many families. After my brother explained why, I must admit that I then began to do some checking on McCain and not just listen to the spins...but when Palin was picked, then I decided. I was in Dayton that day--but now I am strongly against 4 more years of Bush/Cheney/Rove....just the way it is with some of us.

Posted by: Valdar | October 13, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is an enemy combatant and McCain played right into her and Stoll's scheme to take over our government. Read here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/

Palin is the true terrorist here and we must do everything in our power as a country to stop her since McCain is too senile to know better.

Palin is dangerous to our country. McCain is too gone to know it.

Save the United States from the terrorist Palin.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2008

Posted by: Republican Christians for Obama! | October 13, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

1; JAKED GET A LIFE. BEING ON THIS SITE FOR FIVE HOURS CONCERNS ME WRT YOUR INACTIVIRY!
2: jAKE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO VOTE FOR WHOEVER YOU LIKE, AND SINCE HALF THE POPULATION DOESN'T BOTHER EACH PREZ ELECTION, GIVE YOURSELF A, SMALL PAT ON THE BACK.
3 WHILE TOU ARE RIGHT THAT SHE BROKE NO LAW BY FIRING MONAGHAN, THE EFORTS TO OUST
WOOTEN BY PALIN AND NER SURROGATES WENT TOO FAR.
4 "PERSONAL GAIN". THAT SHE FAILED TO GET THE GAIN IS IRRELEVANT. ACCORDING TO ALASKA LAW SHE DID WRONG, YABETCHA!
(ps I DID READ THE REPORT, AS AN ATTORNEY, AND IT IS CLEAR SHE ABUSED HER POSITION)
5: THE INVESTIGATION, WHICH THE ALASKA FOUND LEGAL, BEGAN BEFORE HER NOMINATION, AND BRANCHFLOWER, IT APPEARS HAD TO GO THRU THE LEGISLATURE FRO SUBPEONAS.
THE ALASKA A/G'S OFFICE REFUSED TO ENFORCE AND THE REPORT STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT PALIN FAILED TO CO-OPERATE.
6: WHILE SOME OF THE REPUBLICANS ON THE PANEL 10-4 DEMS MAY DISLIKE (OR hATE) PALIN, I DOUBT THEY'D WANT TO SEE THE REPUBLICAN SLATE NATIONWIDE BE HARMED.
GET OFFLINE JAKED-TAKE A WALK OR GO TO FOXNEWS YOUR FAVORITE CHANNEL

Posted by: steve | October 13, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

If you think the awarding of FOUR Pinocchios "proven liar", think again, preferrably AFTER reading "About our rating scale":

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/about_the_fact_checker.html#pinocchio

Whatever his biases may be, Doobs at least does not ascribe motives behind any alleged "whoppers".

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:35 PM | Report abuse

"Whether or not the Branchflower report -- which was launched by a bipartisan committee -- was a partisan smear job is debatable."
ARRRRRGH!! No it is NOT debatable! this is a Republican-dominated council that started this investigation, hiring a well-respected Republican lawyer to do it! Enough with the false even-handedness. Sometimes, one side is lying more than the other. Thank god the American people are able to see which is doing that this year.

Posted by: Jon | October 13, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, Doth protest too much.

Sarah Palin scares me. Her campaigns remind me of the old South - the only thing missing is her white hood.

Posted by: HockeyMom | October 13, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Steve:

I did take a walk this afternoon, but that was after I read the report (and as an attorney) I believe she was cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity. We'll have to agree to disagree : )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Jon:

Please see Bill_Szym's post (above).

HockeyMom:

Do you think that "racists" would vote for Alan Keyes?

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/38/102738-004-B491A004.jpg

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

She is the biggest lair. More than that she is the worst candidate ever to run for the office of VP. She makes Quayle look like a rocket scientist. The following says it all...

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas
rancher who caught his hand in a gate while working with
cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old
man. Eventually, the topic got around to Sarah Palin and
her bid to be a heartbeat away from being President.
The old rancher said, "Well, ya know, Palin is a post
turtle."

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked,
"What is a post turtle?"

The old rancher said, "When you're driving down a
country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle
balanced on top, that's a post turtle."

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face
so he continued to explain, "You know she didn't get up there
by herself, she doesn't belong up there, she doesn't know
what to do while she's up there, and you just wonder what
kind of dumb a55 put her up there to begin with."

Posted by: rcc_2000 | October 13, 2008 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Doobs = Dobbs (The "Fact" Checker ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

rcc_2000:

You really think that "says it all"?! For starters, it's kinda sexist. I would also argue that Thomas Eagleton was a worse VP candidate. Ross Perot's running mate famously asked "Why am I here?"

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:46 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

If Monegan was fired because he would not do something illegal (Getting Wooten fired), then getting rid of Monegan would be illegal as well.

Insubordination in the execution of an illegal directive.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

That wasn't why Monegan was fired. Are you the earlier "James" or not?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Do you believe that "Steve" IS an attorney, just because he agrees with you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Remember 'facts mean nothing when emotions are involved'. So comment all you want you won't change anyone mind. Those are all set in stone.

Posted by: jkd53 | October 13, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

I'm not here to change any minds, that's for sure ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

All of you who say things like this is a witch hunt, this is a trite matter and doesn't deserve the media attention, are missing the point. The point is, the report states that Palin made an ethical violation. Palin states that the report cleared her of any ethical wrongdoing. That is a false statement. In other words, it is an outright lie. If Palin had merely said she did nothing ethically wrong (in other words, if she made a statement declaring her own opinion of the matter), that would have been at least more truthful.

Those who are defending Palin on this matter - are you really okay with someone who so blatantly lies? And the fact that people are buying into it and defending her - if you turn a blind eye to such behavior, what other kind of behavior will you turn a blind eye to? People ignore lie after lie, ignore her ignorance, ignore her inexperience...people say Palin scares them with the way she thinks, and she scares me, too. But that some people can be taken in so easily scares me the most.

Posted by: Debster | October 13, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

For all of you who been cramming McCain down other's throats, while saying Obama is dangerous:

What do you have to say about your man McCain saying the following, "I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States,"

Are you telling the readers that you don't believe in what McCain has to say? What is it folks, you can't have it both ways.

Posted by: BigFish | October 13, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

oh and one more thing - - - -
JakeD STFU. You're embarassing man. The more you talk the more holes appear in what you say.

Posted by: BigFish | October 13, 2008 7:07 PM | Report abuse

Debster:

After you read my posts (above) let me know if you still have any questions why I don't think she "blatently lied". Thanks in advance.

BigFish:

I think he was just trying to be polite, you know, like everyone is about that crazy old uncle at Thanksgiving dinner?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

No thanks, BigFish (our posts passed in cyberspace).

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

James or rcc_2000:

You still around?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Makes me wonder if JakeD isn't Palin's hubby. After all, he has not much to do while "the skirt" is in the limelight.

Posted by: BigFish | October 13, 2008 7:18 PM | Report abuse


The real issue is that she lied back in September. She said "no one" had ever talked to Monegan about firing Wooten. The report indicates that she did so herself, and others talked to him more than 30 times. That sounds like harassment, frankly.

The more worriesome part of this report is that it sounds like her husband Todd was actually running the state. He was in her office 50% of the time.

I might have voted for mcCain but I refuse to vote for Palin. The thought of her as VP or president makes me sick to my stomach because she would just be a complete disaster. Here's a woman who has a substandard education and can't answer simple questions -- and McCain thinks that she is capable of becoming the leader of the free world?

The history is clear - the minute she gets any bit of power, she has abused it.

Posted by: Not buying it in Floirda | October 13, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Not buying it in Floirda:

I read the entire Report, and while she talked to Monegan about Wooten, she never told him to fire Wooten. So, Gov. Palin did not "lie" back in September either.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, Palin has a problem to READ. She might be the child left behind by Mr. Bush. LOL! Just vote for Obama/Biden!

Posted by: SingleMom | October 13, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - I've read your posts. You attempt to twist words the same way Palin tries.

Like I said: Scary.


Posted by: Debster | October 13, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

I just think there are a few "bottom lines" here - there was ethical wrongdoing, she allowed her husband to interfere in affairs of state, she wouldn't cooperate with the investigation, she lied about the report even though the report directly contradicts her statements, and she is accusing a bipartisan investigation of being a witch hunt - did it "clear her name" or is it a partisan smear campaign? You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: kjh2008 | October 13, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

SingleMom:

What do you think Gov. Palin cannot read now?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Sarah is the best thing to happen to national politics in my life time. She is slandered by the left every day, but she is still very popular with those who respect who she really is. This fact checker seems more and more to be a schill for Obama........
Rusty

Posted by: rusty | October 13, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

O.K., Debster, what do YOU think this means:

Finding Number Two states:

"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, 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 Added).

I'm not twisting ANY words, just quoting from the Report itself.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

rusty:

You've got that right ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse


I'm just embarassed by Gov. Palin.

She lied and violated ethics standards. She dismissed it completely. IF she would have said, "I made a mistake, but I didn't violate a law..." that would have been one thing. But it's like she thinks she's just above the law.

She fired a guy for personal reasons. OK, so that part wasn't technically illegal, but does it make it right?

I would never vote for her again as governor of my state -- much less for VP of this country!

I thought she was a christian. But she's a liar, she's unrepetent she's petty and mean-spirited. This is not my idea of a good Christian.

Posted by: Angie from Fairbanks | October 13, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe my eyes! I come back 3 hours later and JakeD is still commenting. LOSER DUDE! GET A LIFE

Posted by: Siggy | October 13, 2008 7:34 PM | Report abuse

PALIN BROKE THE LAW

NOT because she fired Monegan but because she and her husband engaged in as witch hunt for her ex-brother-in-law using the resources and powers of the governer's office. Thus she broke the ethics statute!

Is she guilty?
The investigation is NOT a court of law; so the term "guilty" is misleading and doesn't not apply, yet.

The investgator found she broke the ethics statute. The results of the investigation sets up the possiblity of a trial, impeachment, censure or whatever they do up there. Then she would be guilty.

Posted by: Try this again... | October 13, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

JakeD already has voted for SIDNEY and LOUISE and states (correct me if I am wrong...I know you will) that his reasoning is due to their anti-choice stance on abortion. I believe you used the words "pro-life" specifically. Does JakeD believe in the death penalty for certain crimes?

This is exactly how George WALKER Bush got elected twice. Single-issue voters having little care for any other issues beyond an extremely narrow world view. Did JakeD vote for WALKER, I wonder? Twice?

Oh, yeah...

Single-issue voters also are inflexible in the face of overwhelming evidence and have an infinite ability to deny the obvious. So don't beat yourself up trying to get him to say SIDNEY lied... Besides, he is also a lawyer and can lie with the best of them. That is why so many politicians have law degrees...

And yes, I know that only one side in this election has lawyers running for office. It takes a lot of intelligence, drive and critical thinking to gain a law degree. Too bad certain lawyers (JakeD) do not use those attributes.

Posted by: wolp | October 13, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, Sexist???? Really??? Okay, please tell me why it is sexist? If she were a man she would she/he would still qualifyt as a Post Turtle...

As for Eagleton he was only a candidate for 18 days... And honestly I still stand by what I said... And maybe electroshock might do Palin some good

rcc_2000:

You really think that "says it all"?! For starters, it's kinda sexist. I would also argue that Thomas Eagleton was a worse VP candidate. Ross Perot's running mate famously asked "Why am I here?"

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 6:46 PM

Posted by: rcc_2000 | October 13, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only person who is reminded of Katherine Harris when they see Sarah Palin?

And like Palin, she was a GOP good-looking (at the time) puppet. She did whatever they asked -- even handing G.W. the presidency.

Of course, they dumped her later when she wasn't useful. I'm sure they will do the same with Palin.

I was in the Orlando airport and people boooed when she came on TV saying the quote above- that she didn't do anything wrong. People were actually yelling "you're a liar!!" at the TV. People started talking to strangers saying, "Can you believe this?!"

In Orlando. Florida.

Just because McCain's camp has dismissed it and Obama won't smear them with it doesn't mean this hasn't sunk in with people.

Posted by: Barb - Jewish 60+ voter for Obama | October 13, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

JakeD when you refer to the crazy old uncle at Thanksgiving dinner? You talkin' McCain, right?

Notice how I am droppin' the "g" so I can be all folksy and stuff and you'll all will feel right at home - you betcha

Posted by: Mo6Pak | October 13, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Angie from Fairbanks:

You can vote for whomever you like, but you should at least have the true facts. She didn't "lie" or "violate" any law. At worse, she fell below the standard of care on ethics guidelines and should have reigned Todd in. As I stated above, however, I would have protected my sister with a firearm personally.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, I have been reading your (multiple) post and now I regret replying to you... Your not worth the time.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | October 13, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Jake is the smarmy hubby of the gov.

Posted by: Siggy | October 13, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

This whole topic is a waste of bandwidth, as is every one devoted to politics.

Posted by: Brian | October 13, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

wolp:

Of course I believe in the death penalty for certain crimes -- any murderer forfeits his right to live -- I don't believe GWB is a "murderer" so, yes, I did vote for him, twice. So did 60+ million others.

rcc_2000:

You didn't tell that "joke" about the male candidate, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who is less qualified and experienced -- as for Eagleton, I still stand by what I said too -- if anyone ELSE wants to debate that (rcc_2000 now "regrets replying"), please let me know.

Barb:

I don't think of Kathleen Harris at all in regards to Gov. Palin. Harris was much too liberal for me.

Mo6Pak:

No, I'm referring to the crazy old uncle I grew up with, assuming people had their own crazy relatives they could relate the same "polite" behavior to.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

At the Philadelphia Flyers and NY Rangers Hockey Game where Pathetic peeeuuu Palin had "dropped" the puck....bleech..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj24wJh5rPk

The crowd gives her the appropriate Philadelphia, welcome and watch how the proverbial "hockey mom" drops the puck, as though it's steaming crap.

The announcer introduced Palin seconds later, and the crowd errupted into angry boos their boos were heard above all the others. It lasted for minutes (throughout the puck drop), these deafening jeers that ordered Palin off the ice.

In the clips that appear on YouTube and elsewhere, it seems that the music was turned up in the arena to drown out the fan reaction.

With the election so close, and with so many votes being swayed by sound bites and slights of hand, it would be nice to hear the truth now and again–it would be nice for more people to realize that maybe not every “Joe Six-Pack” rests in Palin’s back pocket afterall.

It goes to the heart of the Republican power mindset and miscalculation regarding the image or perception versus reality.

Just because she says she is a hockey mom in AK does not mean Hockey fans who actually pay to put their fannies in the seats think she is something they might align with, like a product endorsement.

It didn't sell did it.

These Hockey Moms and Dads in the arena were thinking of their 401K, and jobs and home equities and all that was 8 years, and they were also thinking WTF is she here disrupting my distraction for all that I have to go home to....

Philadelphia is also not a fan friendly place if they are not happy with your performance for it is the House of Booos!

But the best part was Sarah playing the part to the end without breaking her smile----like a well trained pageant contestant she once was.

Smiling will not stop what people really think.

This is why Republicans have always carefully managed their public appearances and audiences.

This should be used as a backdrop for an Obama commercial..under this statement...

She calls herself a hockey mom....but cant even drop a puck....what if she drops America as well.......

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 13, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Palin===Troopergate ETHICS VIOLATIONS CONFIRMED===
===McCain===Savings and Loans with Charles Keating ETHICS VIOLATIONS CONFIRMED===
===Palin's Witchdoctor exorcism can't help either one===
===IT'S TIME TO PUT OBAMA AND BIDEN TO WORK FOR ALL AMERICA!!!

Posted by: benighse | October 13, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

Palin===Troopergate ETHICS VIOLATIONS CONFIRMED===
===McCain===Savings and Loans with Charles Keating ETHICS VIOLATIONS CONFIRMED===
===Palin's Witchdoctor exorcism can't help either one===
===IT'S TIME TO PUT OBAMA AND BIDEN TO WORK FOR ALL AMERICA!!!

Posted by: benighse | October 13, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Gosh darnit Mo6Pak! You stole my post! Uncle SIDNEY, time for your nap!

And Siggy, Mr. Sarah LOUISE HEATH Palin could not be as intransigent as JakeD. Nor would he know what that word means...

Posted by: wolp | October 13, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

Oh, hello JakeD, the selective report quoter. We all know the report said she was within her legal right to hire and fire at will. My post made no mention of her breaking a law.

This is also picked up directly from the report:

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides:

"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

Regardless of whether you personally agree with the report or with the interpretation of the statute, the report clearly states that she was found to have abused her power. She was found to have violated an ethics statute!

The issue here is that Palin, like you, is picking up on the fact that she was found to be in her right to fire Monegan. It did NOT clear her, in her own words, of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity there." Or are you saying that abusing power is ethical and not to be considered a wrongdoing?

Posted by: Debster | October 13, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You are one obsessed Sarah Palin fan, that is for sure. You have spent hours on this board defending her. Congratulations, maybe she can hire you to be her spokesperson to lie and cover up all her illegal and unethical activities.

I read the report and it is absolutely clear that Sarah and Todd Palin abused the power of Alaka's top executive position to pressure subordinates to fire their ex-brother-in-law. They both used the governor's office, the governor's staff, government resources to settle a personal vandetta. She can fire whoever she wants but she cannot pressure her subordinates to conduct in illegal activities. If Monegan would have fired Wooten due the pressure Monegan would have broke the law and been charged with a misdemeanor.

Please quit defending the Palins for your own sake JakeD. You are appearing desperate and obsessed.

Posted by: NOOONONSENSE | October 13, 2008 7:51 PM | Report abuse

McCain's "OL' GEEZER EXPRESS" has run out of straight-talk and the wheels are falling off:

MCCAIN HAS AN ABUSIVE TEMPER AND PALIN ABUSES POWER.

PALIN IS BUSTED. SHE IS CONFIRMED AS HAVING ABUSED PERSONAL POWER IN HER GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. VIOLATED ETHICS. PERIOD. WHAT PART OF THIS DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND?

The finding of Palin's guilt in abuse of executive power speaks worlds about John McCain's lack of judgment. But of course he admitted he had only met her personally ONE TIME before he selected her--was it with the other Joe Six-Pack's at a bar, and he decided to take her with him? Who knows, there are not even any pictures of him meeting with her before he selected the LUV GUV!

She's no longer a pitbull, but has to go back to being a sleddog ---....As the ol' song says: You go North to Alaska, you go North perhaps you know, ....way up North....North to Alaska.... -- RIGHT NOW PLEASE!

No longer a pitbull, but looking like a weasel--a little ol' mavericky weasel-you betcha!

It'll be painless when we become Mccainless and palinless...

Let's put Obama and Biden to work for all America, and let's do it now!!


Posted by: benighse | October 13, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

No, I'm saying there's no abuse of power IF (as the Report states), the Governor's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority. The two issues are related. As I said, at worse, she fell below the standard of care on ethics guidelines only. She did NOT violate the law.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"Of course I believe in the death penalty for certain crimes -- any murderer forfeits his right to live -- I don't believe GWB is a "murderer" so, yes, I did vote for him, twice. So did 60+ million others." -JakeD

Do you have any regrets about voting for WALKER twice? Or are you a part of his ~23% approval rating? (BTW, I have not tried to insinuate that WALKER is a "murderer".)

Does anyone else wonder why so many "pro-life" position people are pro-war and pro-death penalty? Is not every life sacred, always? Or is it, once a child leaves the womb it is on its own?

Just curious...

Posted by: wolp | October 13, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

it was a lawful "exercise", In other words, there was nothing wrong in the way she did it, the procedure. However, illegal motives make it illegal.


Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

That last post was for Debster.

NOOONONSENSE:

If you actually read the Report, then maybe you can give us all the page number where it was found that Governor Palin told ANYONE to "fire" Wooten? Because, the Report I read specifically concluded she didn't do that. I won't "quit defending" the innocent, born or unborn, until the day my Lord takes me home ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Jake I find you very ignorant and repulsive. You are the kind of person that makes Americans look bad. Did you forget about the Statue of Lady Liberty and the notation on this crowning glory?

My middle name is Hussein and it is a Semitic name for good. Have we forgotten about General Omar Nelson Bradley? Does his first name make him a terrorist? Even Benjamin Franklin's first name was Semitic, " Bin Yamin."

Why do you have so much hate in your heart over a name? I pity you and your ignorance.

Posted by: JHusseinGolden | October 13, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised the Washington Post has any Pinocchios to distribute to Palin. They should award them all in house (lots of worthy candidates right there on the WP staff).

Palin had the right to ask for the resignation of a cabinet member. Period.

Did anyone who was fired EVER think it was justified? Of course not.

Then the person fired resorts to these kind of shenanigans to try a squeeze some money out of the situation.

In this case it's supercharged because now a political party thinks they can also exploit the situation to their gain. The media figures there must be something in it for them and pander for more viewership/readership/bloggership.

Palin is showing disdain the "findings" of this kangaroo court, as well she should. Good practice for when she's elected VP.

Posted by: newton31 | October 13, 2008 8:01 PM | Report abuse

JHusseinGolden:

I doubt that your GIVEN middle name is Hussein (considering you are simply parroting the same talking points about that from above), but even if it is, I thought it meant "handsome one"? No need to be ashamed of it. It is "hateful" to also use the other candidates' middle names? Did you see the discussion with Kay Decker? As I stated, previously, I don't need "pity" from anyone.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

wolp:

See Genesis 9:6 for the pro-life/pro-capital punishment position.

James:

Maybe a "real" attorney can explain it to you more effectively.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - you are right. The report stated she did not break any laws.

I am not talking about Palin breaking the law. I am talking about Palin lying about part of the content of the report (and to clarify, she's not lying about the LEGAL aspect). I am asking you to address this statement made by Sarah Palin:

"I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

And tell me how that is a true statement, when the report stated this:
For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides:

"The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust."

I'll spell it out for you - ignore the first part of her quote. Look at the second part, where she goes on to say she was cleared of any HINT of any unethical activity. How is that not a lie when the report states she violated an ethics statute?

I will clarify, so I can be perfectly clear so maybe this time you'll address the issue: Palin's quote says that she was cleared of ethical wrongdoing. The report states that she violated an ethics statute. Palin is either lying or is unable to comprehend report-level writing.

Posted by: Debster | October 13, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

Also, look up "Just War Doctrine" (clearly beyond the scope of this thread ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You are absolutely correct, Governor Palin never used the exact terms, "fire" Wooten. But she was the one elected to be Governor. That means anything that happens in the executive branch is her responsibility. If Todd Palin were conducting their personal vendetta on his own time with his own resources that would have been fine. But no, Todd Palin used the Governor's official office and resources not only to pressure and influence Monegan but also numerous other staff members who then put pressure on Monegan. You cannot tell me that Sarah Palin did not know this was going on. If you try to defend her by saying she was unaware I have an Alaskan iceberg to sell you. Anyway, you have a wonderful evening and congratulations for being pro-life for unborn babies but being more than willing to kill young men and innocent civilians in fraudulent wars. You sound pretty level headed to me???

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

I have to agree with you Palin is the third worst VP candidate in history not the worst.

BTW which one are you in this crowd?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us&eurl=http://liesliesmorelies.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccain-racist-rally-goers-pt-2.html

Posted by: Bob | October 13, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Look at that photo. Every time she opens her mouth, her pointer fingers grow longer.

Posted by: hamishdad | October 13, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

JHusseinGolden, JakeD is not ignorant. He knows what the facts are, I believe, and is certainly literate. He chooses to see things this way and enjoys rubbing bloggers the wrong way.

He could be employed by a Republican group, but their direct money is typically spent on smears, not apologists.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

LOL, Debster, both questions are related. The "standard of care" in an ethics violation is completely SUBJECTIVE. No one is denying that the Report concluded she fell below that SUBJECTIVE standard of care. But, I believe that her attorney argued that "any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest" was not proven. Bottom line, if she didn't break any law, the ethics violation remains unproven -- perhaps she should have said that to be crystal clear -- I have no problem with her getting to the gist of that when she said she was cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity" too.

P.S. to Bob:

I wasn't there.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I am not paid to post here. I simply enjoy teaching little-known facts (as I stated above) and being the Devil's Advocate.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I could, just as easily, post at Free Republic about how awful Palin /McCain are, glorifying The One / Biden.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

I worry about Sarah's husband, Todd's influence on her...and her ability to control him. He also was involved in this firing fiasco. I am even more concerned about her "guilt by association' connection to the Alaskan Independence Party which supports the overthrow of the USA government. Her husband was a member of this angry group, and she recently spoke to them, reportedly telling them they are doing a good job. do we need someone like that as Vice President? I think not.

Posted by: Joanna Griswold | October 13, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

FYI (before anyone claims I am Satanic):

In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who takes a position, sometimes one he or she disagrees with, for the sake of argument. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure. More formally, however, the Devil's Advocate (Latin Advocatus Diaboli), was a canon lawyer appointed by the Church to argue against the canonization of the candidate. During the canonization process, the Promoter of the Faith (Latin Promotor Fidei) argues in favor of the candidate. In this case, think Joe Biden.

It's my job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc. No one should take it personally, really ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, what about Deuteronomy 17:2-3? If we want to start quoting the Bible...

Are you condoning killing of people of other faiths? Because that is what the literal translation of that passage means.

And of course, every word in the Bible must be true, correct? So do you believe in that?

Posted by: wolp | October 13, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Stay tuned: the contractors who built the Wasilla Sports Complex also built Sarah Palin's new Wasilla home ... for free. Hope the WaPo picks this up.

Posted by: Hey, Why are you Booing a Hockey pitbull? | October 13, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Joanna:

I was worried about Hillary's husband, Bill's influence on her -- and her ability to control him -- had Obama picked Hillary as his VP instead of Biden. I doubt that Todd could do any worse. Luckily, for me at least, Hillary was not tapped as the VP nominee.

I'm glad to see you are fine with the "guilt by association" technique. Rev. Wright is next ...

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

A very nice cut and paste from Wikipedia JakeD...

Posted by: wolp | October 13, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

She did not break any laws and she has no lingering issues... except for the biased media who will do anything to smear her and degrade her at all times... I am so sick of it... I will be glad when the election is over.. and I so hope Sarah and John McCain win... We can not take the obama nation and his liberal blind watch dogs... journalism is dead....

Posted by: Debra | October 13, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: You clearly are owner of a mind that is impervious to basic logic and reason. You could be a republican VP candidate as it seems those are the necessary qualifications. You believe that it is essential that voters know that Obama's middle name is Hussein, yet you continue to avoid explaining what you believe the name Hussein implies about his character or why you think it's an important fact. The only possible reason I could fathom voters would find this a relevant piece of information towards their voting choice would be if there was another Barack Obama they could vote for. Please, would you do me the honour of clearing this up for me?

Posted by: Mark | October 13, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

wolp:

Thanks (I obviously had to know what "Devil's Advocate" meant to even look it up). As you are no doubt aware, fundamentalist Christians believe that every word in the Bible is, indeed, true and Holy. The reason we don't kill unbelievers (or eat shellfish, for that matter) is a function of the Noahic vs. Abrahamic (sp?) Covenants. Check out Wikipedia, if you want.

Basically, Jesus fulfilled the need for Jewish sacrifices, so Christians are freed from those proscriptions. Nonetheless, Christians shouldn't cause a brother to stumble. And, even a Christian forfeits his "right to life" if he murders someone. While this is way off-topic, look up Just War Doctrine (Wikipedia again ; ) and I will try to answer any lingering questions you may have about why Christians can "murder" during war.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

For those of us that watched the Wooten interview, the facts according to him, is he came back from teaching a taser use program to officers when his son asked how. The amperage power is reduced and they test on each other. Can I try dad? He admitted he made a horrible choice in showing him. The Palin's did abuse power and in the court of public opinion it is right and wrong, not legal or illegal.

Posted by: Jimbo | October 13, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

LOL, JakeD. You are still twisting words and, I'm afraid, not very effectively. You are still skirting my direct question as Palin skirts many direct questions.

I already said regardless of whether you believe the interpretation of the statute, her statement is a direct contradiction of what the report clearly states. You are reading between the lines of the report when you start talking about "standard of care" and subjectivity.

Her attorney can argue whatever he wants, it doesn't change the report. Besides, there are a dozen ways to counter that argument. Maybe a personal gain wasn't realized because they were unsuccessful in getting Wooten fired, eh? But that's okay. You do what you gotta do to make yourself feel good. Aloha.

Posted by: Debster | October 13, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

Mark:

I'll try (again). As I said, above, I am a trivia buff. That, alone, makes little-known information "important". Another possible reason it could be "important" is if you get on Jeopardy and the category is "Famous Middle Names" (as it was recently). It's not my fault if "low information" voters hear that middle name and simply assume that Obama's a Muslin terrorist. Does that clear it up for you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Debster:

Aloha!

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Any abuse of power by a public official is not good for The People, period.

It doesn't matter the state or country it is a misuse of power (entrusted to a politician by the people).

Palin has been painting herself as a 'reformer' yet as time goes on we are finding out that she has (on more than one occasion) used her office for personal gain.

Country First? which country? (Palin Land?)

Posted by: ssanford00 | October 13, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

Jimbo:

Could you please explain that to "Coastal" (above) in simpler terms?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Good to know Hussein invokes mass hatred of Islam. The Florida policeman at the McCain rally reminded me of a brownshirt or a bull Connor. Thousands of Obama supporters have blogged with Hussein as a fake middle name to prove America's hatred is misplaced. Tell me Jake D if Louis Farrakan the anti-semitic racist pro lifer ran, would you vote for him?

Posted by: Jimbo | October 13, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

ssanford00:

The "abuse of power" conclusion is completely SUBJECTIVE. If Gov. Palin did not violate any law -- per the Report quoted above -- you've got nothing.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Sopme of you don't like that fact checker tells it like it is and it may not look good for your choice of a canadate.They have gone after both sides only saying Obama may stretch the facts while McCain and Palin outright lie about them.I have read the report also. So yes she did lie,not just stretching the truth but lied.I am not a McCain supporter but my daughter was untill he picked Palin,now she says she just can not vote for the man. This woman is very dangerous for our country.Just look at the hate she is inciting and than tries to blame it on the economy.Ya right wink wink

Posted by: jojobo1 | October 13, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Some of you don't like that fact checker tells it like it is and it may not look good for your choice of a canadate.They have gone after both sides only saying Obama may stretch the facts while McCain and Palin outright lie about them.I have read the report also. So yes she did lie,not just stretching the truth but lied.I am not a McCain supporter but my daughter was untill he picked Palin,now she says she just can not vote for the man. This woman is very dangerous for our country.Just look at the hate she is inciting and than tries to blame it on the economy.Ya right wink wink

Posted by: jojobo1 | October 13, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: Doesn't really do much to clear it up for me. I think what you're saying is that you admit it bears no relation toward his character and indeed that it is simply irrelevant when considering who to vote for, but I can't be sure. It is interesting though that you volunteered that "low information" (as you put it) voters might assume that he is a Muslim terrorist because of his middle name. Is this something that you, as a professed republican voter, might wish to exploit? Seems like a rather cogent theory I have there.

Posted by: Mark | October 13, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Jimbo:

If there was no other pro-life candidate, yes, I guess I would have to vote for ol' Louie -- yet another example of an African-American I would vote for -- but thankfully there's always been a better pro-life candidate running ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Maybe if McCain made the smart move and picked Romney, the Biden debate gaffes could have been realized. A memorize only talking points, intellectual lightweight like Palin is lucky to find the door she came in by.

Posted by: Jimbo | October 13, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

And, a Muslim (extra bonus points!)

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Jim FYI Monegan already has taken them to court and won an out of court settlement.

Posted by: Jimbo | October 13, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Mark:

There are "low information" (as I put it) voters on both sides -- 20/20 had a story Friday night I think about youths who didn't know how many Senators or even States we had -- of course, even Barack HUSSEIN Obama got that last one wrong ; )

Now, if you had asked me "Does his middle name bear any relation toward his character?" I would have, of course, answered "no". Next question?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama will suck this country dry of any entreprenuerial and economic strength. he's a leech that wants to feed off the hard working Americans who pay taxes and create jobs for others. his protectionist idealism will only lead to the demise of our economy. He's the great equalizer of all non-working people and will drive American people to the lowest common denominator.

you democrats tell me how open-minded and "liberal" and tolerant you are, but no where is that shown or seen, unless it drives all people in American to lowest common denominator of mediocrity.

and you actually believe your charismatic man who professes to do no evil came out of the Old Chicago boys' network without doing anything ethically wrong??? you can't get elected into Chicago and Illinois positions without selling your soul. impossible. lowest common denominator in the U.S.A. just got lower.

Posted by: jb | October 13, 2008 9:07 PM | Report abuse

How many Pinocchios did you give President Clinton, Mr. Dobbs?

Posted by: Gus | October 13, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Jimbo:

I was unaware of a settlement -- I doubt that any liability was acknowledged -- do you have a link?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Gus:

The "Fact" Checker prefers to make excuses for DEMOCRATS.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Well, I did put it to you that you might be attempting to imply something about his character and to explain yourself. It would be a pity if it turned out that you were amongst the group of people that know better than to think he is involved in terrorism but would like to promote the falsehood that he is. I'll assume you're not, because they're not very nice people. My next question would be, what do you think of the kind of people who try to imply such obvious untruths?

Posted by: Mark | October 13, 2008 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Dem talking points. Palin did not fire Monegan, he was reassigned and then he resigned. Also, the guy who wrote this report is an Obama supporter who is in the tank for Obama just like most all the main stream media. Palin did have authority to do what she did. I doubt most of the readers here read the report. Just like any thing a few quotes taken out of context can make up what ever story you want. When, as someone else asked, is there going to be the in depth investigation into Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc. Can't do that, because for Dems the past doesn't matter. Welcome to the USSA...

Posted by: Daryl | October 13, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Mark:

I think those kind of people probably get paid a lot more than I do for posting here (also, I can't rule out the possibility that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist -- see my comments to Kay Decker, above ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

He was a trooper that had an alcohol problem and tasered a 10year old.

He should of been fired.

Case closed.


Go Palin.


4 pinnochio's for Wash POST!!

Posted by: DC MOM | October 13, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Daryl:

As I understand it, Monegan was offered a different post but declined. Then, Gov. Palin did, in fact, fire him. Look, I have nothing personal against the guy. His father was a decorated Korean War hero. Even he says that Gov. Palin never told him to fire Wooten. In hindsight, however, she should have reigned in Todd a bit. I can understand the frustration though. No law was broken though.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

I suppose you can't. Can you also not rule out the possibility that McCain is a secret Martian planning the invasion of Earth?

Posted by: Mark | October 13, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

“I’ve never contested my firing. My firing was completely lawful,” Monegan said in a nationally broadcast interview. “It wasn’t that I was fired that I asked any questions. It was, what were the reasons for the firing.”

Monegan declined to say in an interview with NBC’s “Today” show what legal options, if any, he might be exploring in the wake of the findings announced late Friday in Alaska by investigator Stephen Branchflower.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 12:43 PM

Will there EVER be a hard-hitting Fact Checker on Obama or Biden?

What facts would you like checked?

Please don't bring up stupid things like Senator Obama is a Muslim, birth certificate, college transcripts, acorn, Freddie and Fannie.

Learn how to Google and do your own basic research, so what facts are there that you cannot find on line??

Posted by: JAC | October 13, 2008 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Monegan is probably waiting for the second investigator's report, the one Palin says she'll cooperate with, before he files a lawsuit.

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

Jake D has alot of time on his hands. Like the ignorant, racist,filthy, snaggled toothed McCain/Palin supporters who refuse to vote for a person because of the color of one's skin. It's a true shame. What's promising is that as time goes on the racial divide decreases! I choose Barack Obama because I cant afford to pay the same taxes I am now. I believe people have the right to choice. In America we have the right to practice whatever religion we want. Unfortunately for you JakeD Roe V Wade will never be overturned so the government wont get to decide what another young lady does with her body. In looking at the bigger picture. The only things we're really stuck with are taxes. It's ignorant to vote for a candidate based on their religious beliefs. Cause it doesnt matter! That's why our founders came here! If anyone feels its important that government "enforce" one true religion than they are no better than many of those middle eastern countries. So quit bashing them when in reality you admire them. I was born and raised a christian, but guess what even christ was jewish. This post turned into a rant. This was certainly not my original intent, but it sure felt good!

Obama/Biden 08!!

Posted by: I'm voting for "that one" AKA Hussein, the terrorist, bad guy. | October 13, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

Biden made 3 mis-statements that I saw in the debate. I lost count at twenty for Palin. I would not want her as county clerk, let alone POTUS. McCain 2000 is not the candidate we see today. Obama while being choice respects the positions of pro lifers having Casey speak at the Democratic convention about it. He has not taken the simple attack on Palin for ethics violations, showing far more class than Palin. McCain contrary to popular belief has voted against the generals since the Gingrich revolution. Powell on Somalia, Shinseki on Iraq, Fallon on Iran, the joint chiefs on the surge, on Iraqi drawdown and Afghan buildup. He took Cheney's Georgia position over that of Rice and Gates. I don't want my POTUS to decide on gut but informed reasoned recommendations.

Posted by: Jimbo | October 13, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

In order for Ms Palin to qualify for Vice President she will have to obtain and maintain the highest security clearance there is. If she can't do that she does not qualify to be Vice President.

In order for Ms Palin to qualify for Vice President she will have to meet standards of conduct or ethics laws. She has already failed on that count for Alaska.

Based on her interviews and the Vice Presidential Debate she has failed to show that she has the intellectual qualifications to perform as Vice President. So tell me why is she still on the ticket with John McCain as VP?!

Posted by: Linda | October 13, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Will be this passionate and engaged after the election? That's when the real work will begin.....

Posted by: A REAL AMERICAN | October 13, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Ooops. Real American uses grammar check. lol

WILL WE be this passionate and engaged after the election?

Posted by: A REAL AMERICAN | October 13, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Try Alaskan newspapers Jake, it is there.

Posted by: Jimbo | October 13, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/why_walt_monegan_got_fired

"Walt Monegan got fired for all of the wrong reasons. Walt Monegan got fired because he had the audacity to tell Governor Palin no, when apparently nobody is allowed to say no to Governor Palin.

"Monegan said no, he couldn't cut his budget because his State Troopers were already being stretched to the limit and public safety suffering. He said no, he couldn't cut his budget because fuel costs for planes, boats and patrol vehicles soaring, while crime in rural Alaska was putting more demands on the Troopers transportation system.

"But more alarming than any budget battle, Monegan said no to firing a State Trooper who had divorced Governor Palin's sister because the guy was being maliciously hounded by Palin's family.

"And not just that; Monegan's firing came after his Colonel had to reprimand the governor's office for meddling in department personnel affairs."

Posted by: James | October 13, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

No, Mark. That's "possible" but, obviously, even less likely than Obama being a secret Muslim.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

if you put lipstick on a pig, can it lie?

Posted by: chris | October 13, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Helllo. I agree.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe how much this woman relishes in self glorification. She abused the powers and trust bestowed on her by the people of Alaska and yet she has the guts to claim victory. She subleted the government to her husband to use and do whatever he pleased. Does America deserve this self seeking woman? Is her lack of knowledge of any issue not disturbing as it is? I magine America under this woman, God forbid.

Posted by: Saddened | October 13, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Michael Barone, a syndicated columnist for Newsweek (hardly a conservative publication) wrote this:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

-------------------------------------------

Obama wants to eliminate our 1st Amendment rights. Anyone who disagrees with him will be prosecuted (AKA persecuted), threatened, or attacked. Heil Obama! What is the difference between liberal thugs and supporters of Hitler, Stalin or Castro.

Posted by: Dodgers1 | October 13, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Michael Barone, a syndicated columnist for Newsweek (hardly a conservative publication) wrote this:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors," Barack Obama told a crowd in Elko, Nev. "I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face." Actually, Obama supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces. They seem determined to shut people up.

That's what Obama supporters, alerted by campaign e-mails, did when conservative Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters.

Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were "false." I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views.

-------------------------------------------

Obama wants to eliminate our 1st Amendment rights. Anyone who disagrees with him will be prosecuted (AKA persecuted), threatened, or attacked. Heil Obama! What is the difference between liberal thugs and supporters of Hitler, Stalin or Castro.

Posted by: Dodgers1 | October 13, 2008 10:21 PM | Report abuse

In reading some of the above comments I believe that many of you don't understand what the words legal, ethic, and moral mean.

First Ms Palin in taking her oath to become Governor read documents to include the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Believe me as a Government employee myself I know she signed under the dotted line that she would observe and perform in accordance with the rules of that act. Therefore, she was not on legal grounds when she abused her power by violating Section 39.52.119(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Next, the term ethic means (look it up in the dictionary yourself if you don't believe me) "a principle of right or good conduct, or a body of such principles". The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is a body of such principles.

Last a moral has many different definitions but the one I am going to use is the following, "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character and behavior, pertaining to the discernment of good and evil (moral philosophy).

Therefore, Ms Palin's brother in law was not following Ms Palen's judgment of moral behavior by using the taser on her nephew. However, she was unethical to use her postion as Governor of Alaska to force Mr Monegan to fire her Brother in Law.

I found my definitions of ethic and moral in the New College Edition, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Remains of Alaska Separatist Are Identified
October 15, 1994

The blue tarp and duct tape in which the remains were wrapped, officials said, matched a description given by a convicted thief, Manfred West, who confessed last summer that he had killed Mr. Vogler in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad and had then buried him.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE3DB153CF936A25753C1A962958260

===

Here are some of the many despicable things that Joe Vogler said about the greatest nation on earth:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag."

"My government is my worst enemy. I'm going to fight them with any means at hand."

The motto for the Alaskan Independence Party is "Alaska First! Alaska Always!"

Todd Palin joined the AIP one year after this article was published. He dropped his allegiance in 2002 when Sarah Palin ran for public office.

Country First? You betcha!

Posted by: Who is Sarah Palin? | October 13, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

pete
I agree with your statement "There is a difference between what is legally acceptable and what is morally right." In that context, Barak's associates and partners may be legally acceptable, but they are surely not morally right. the shoe msy fit the right, but it fits the FAR LEFT much better. Why do liberalsthink they can smear conservative values and take offense when someone questions their values??

Posted by: copewithit | October 13, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

Anyone "brave" enough to at least use a fake name?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

I can't rule out that JakeD is a secret muslim terrorist either, but I would never accuse him of that. Of course. ;)

Posted by: JakeD? | October 13, 2008 10:36 PM | Report abuse


McCAIN-PALIN'S 'FELLOW TRAVELER' INSINUATIONS:
WHAT IF U.S. SECURITY FORCES AGREE?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-palins-fellow-traveler-insinuations-what-if-u-s-security-forces-agree

Posted by: scrivener | October 13, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

She's deserving of at least a dozen Pinocchios for her statement that she's been cleared of any wrong doing in Troopergate. The only question is - is she deliberately lying or is she delusional?

Posted by: laSerenissima | October 13, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone else noticed the irony of JakeD posts, he seems to be quite clear that the main reason he has voted for McSame and Failin' is because, they are pro-life, yet he repeatedly says that he would have used a firearm to defend his sister, in reference to Failin's ex-brother-in-law. Apparently, pro-lifers only protect LIFE until it is born, after that it is okay to kill off people. Just what this country needs, more fanatical religious wingnuts. Here is a BOLD FACT "Separation of Church and State", leave your church out of my goverment.

Posted by: emant2 | October 13, 2008 10:50 PM | Report abuse

I agree that, just because her actions meet a legal standard, does not mean they necessarily pass a moral standard. For instance, I would have personally defended my sister with a firearm. And, I am indeed suggesting that would have been ok. As for Gov. Palin's actions, if there's a legal right to fire Monegan, there's no abuse of power in that regard. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:11 PM

Are you playing stupid or are you the real thing? No one denied that she had the authority to fire Monegan. That's a ridiculous red herring. The ethical breach was in allegedly letting her husband use the authority of the Governor's office to pursue a personal vendetta against Wooten. The report said that she committed this ethical breach. She claimed that the report cleared her of committing any ethical breach. Obviously that passes your standards for honesty, but it remains a blatant and easily demonstrable lie.

The report said she committed violated state ethics. For all I know, that might not be a fair or accurate conclusion, but it is clearly what the report says.
She claimed the report she had not violated any state ethics. That was a lie.

I'll try one more time to spell this out.
If you say "The sky is blue," I may well disagree that the sky is blue, but if I go around telling people "JakeD said the sky is orange" in order to deceive them, I'm lying. Sarah Palin is lying, not because she fired Monegon or even because she allegedly abused her office for personal reasons, but because she is telling lies about the report's conclusions.

Posted by: aleks | October 13, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

What a lying sow!

Posted by: majorteddy | October 13, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Defense of others is clearly accepted in law.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

aleks:

The Report did not state she "committed violated state ethics". Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

To use your analogy, however, if the Report said:

Finding Number One: the sky is blue.

Finding Number Two: the sky is orange.

It would not be a "lie" to state: the Report says the sky is orange.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Dodgers1 wrote "These attempts to shut down political speech have become routine for liberals. Congressional Democrats sought to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on broadcasters, which until it was repealed in the 1980s required equal time for different points of view. The motive was plain: to shut down the one conservative-leaning communications medium, talk radio. Liberal talk-show hosts have mostly failed to draw audiences, and many liberals can't abide having citizens hear contrary views."

WHAT? First you rant that the "fairness doctrine" was a liberal agenda item that required equal time for opposing points of view and then in the same PARAGRAPH you rant that liberals can't abide by having contrary views???? LMAO! I am seriously chuckling here. Read that a few times and see if it makes sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Benefit of the doubt is the kind of presentation that is often made by Palin with her view getting the benefit of the doubt in cases where she is attacking others and in cases where she is defending herself. One wonders how much of this she realizes. In the present campaign, I am not impressed with the wisdom of Palin advising that we should not be concerned with killing civilians and McCain assuring us that he “knows how to” win a war, fix the economy and so on. I am not sure Palin and McCain are thinking past simplistic ideas that are mostly useful for manipulation rather than part of real effective decision making. They seem to be ineffective in the choice and use of the kind of advice that useful studies are made of. We have learned the hard way what this kind of poor judgment can lead to. Hints in the past were in the form of Enron and the Keating Five Scandals.

Posted by: mickeysteib | October 13, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

The Report did not state she "committed violated state ethics". Next canard? JakeD

LOL @ JakeD... I sure hope you are doing this for free; you are not worth any money the Republican machine might be spending on you.
===========================================
From Branchflower's report:

"For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin ABUSED HER POWER by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a VIOLOATION OF THAT TRUST."
===========================================

I guess it just depends on what the meaning of IS is... heh heh heh

Next "canard"... :)

Posted by: Country First? You betcha! | October 13, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

The Report did not say "VIOLOATION" capitalized or not.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Oh JakeD JakeD...
So controversial...arguing for the sake of arguing...baiting for the sake of baiting... seriously it is crystal clear WHY you would vote for M&P...You live in another reality and from your perspective they are trustworthy and reasonable, you like them, you can relate to them, they are like you, they think like you... Remember "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"
In my reality, I see them according to the facts...and logic and reason...let me guess you are either a lawyer or an imagined one...

OBMAMA 08

Posted by: OhioWyse | October 13, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Alright. Time to chime in. It's glaringly obvious that Palin spoke incorrectly. Perhaps it was just a goof (a big one at that) but then, perhaps it was specifically planned to reach out to people that believe nothing but what they see on TV. I don't know. Yes, she was within the law to fire. Yes, she violated ethics. Now, having said that. . .

This issue has been beaten to death on this thread. Not only that, but it's abundantly clear that politics is definitely an emotional issue. After having watched the videos on YouTube, coverage on the television, read newspaper reports and internet articles, I have seen some of the some of the worst smearing on these threads. FROM BOTH SIDES!!

These forums are for us to rationally discuss/debate the issues. They are here for us to find out the facts. They are not here for us to launch personal attacks against each other. While I am proud to be an American, I must say that I'm definitely ashamed of some of my fellow Americans. It's no wonder the rest of the world has such a low opinion of Americans. And yes, the rest of the world matters because we are a part of it. In this global travel/information age, we can no longer afford to be isolationist.

In sum, grow up people. I thought we all learned how to play nice in kindergarten.

Posted by: TimInMT | October 13, 2008 11:40 PM | Report abuse

Palin may have the right to fire anyone without a reason but it sure doesn't mean she has the right to abuse her power as gov. If McCain/Palin supporters can't find any wrong in that then they are as stupid and ignorant as Palin herself. That explains why she thinks it's lawful to abuse your power in office and doesn't find anything wrong in doing so. I can gaurantee that if she's getting a slap on the wrist for it she'll take advantage of her authority again in the future, no doubt about it!

Posted by: vena45 | October 13, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

I'm retired. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then keep the White House GOP and Congress Democratic.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

If McCain/Palin are elected this will be the true end of America as a superpower, China has/is already in the lead now because of the failed Bush administration policy's.

Before any one cryes about this, Fact check first!

The just two party system doesn't work. Why does the top two party's and the media ignore the other party's? A true democracy all political party's would have the same respect inspect to coverage plus in debates.

Posted by: Mad American | October 13, 2008 11:49 PM | Report abuse

MadAmerican:

While I somewhat agree with you about McCain/Palin, unfortunately, we are not a true Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. There's a big difference.

Posted by: TimInMT | October 13, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Ask a political scientist what the definition of "superpower" is before you spout such nonsense again.

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

As an independent who, I had to admit, votef for Bush, I must say Palin falls into the Bush/Cheney way of doing business. Nevermind the facts or the truth, we will make up our own version of the truth and you, dumb citizens, will believe it. It tried that and I didn't like it. Now I am conducting my own search for the truth. Sarah--you're lying. You were not cleared. Quit trying to "spin" it. We see though you.

Posted by: Kev in Minneapolis | October 14, 2008 12:03 AM | Report abuse

Kev:

Did you READ the Report.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:07 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't it bother anyone else that Sarah and Todd Palin supported a group of separatists? That Todd Palin was a member of that group for seven years? That the founder of this political party professed hatred for America? That he cursed our FLAG?

What is wrong with people here? Why can people get their panties in a twist about a burned out radical from the sixties but not care about this?

Joe Vogler was MURDERED when buying PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES and he was getting money from IRAN.

For Christ's sake, people. Get a clue here.

Posted by: Jefferson was a Democrat | October 14, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Heya JakeD! You asked Kev if he had read the report. I am here to help. No thanks necessary... Enjoy!

"For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN ABUSED HER POWER by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a VIOLATION OF THAT TRUST."

Posted by: Branchflower Said | October 14, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, there was a question ("?")

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Jefferson was actually a Democratic Republican:

This thread is about Troopergate, not AIP.

Branchflower said:

Now, quote Finding Number Two and try to make the argument that she broke the law. I have OTOH argued that the Report, as a whole, cleared Gov. Palin of any legal wrongdoing and any hint of ethical activity.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

UNethical (Freudian slip)

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:29 AM | Report abuse

Jaked is one sick dude. I leave for about four hours come back and the dude is still preaching his same old sick gospel - hate. What's all this to you anyways? You got your nose up that gov-chick's skirt or something or is she paying you off? Will we be calling this "Jakey-Gate?"

Hey Jake-six pack what do you think about Palin's connection with the extremists in Alaska. Man oh man, if that was Obama you'd be asking for his head. Oh jake - one more thing. Not a damn thing wrong with Bill Clinton giving Hillary advise? At least when Clinton left the office he left the USA with a surplus of funds. And your Texas boy will be leaving us in debt.

Ol Jakey has a need to be heard. Sorry about your p*nis man.

Posted by: Siggy | October 14, 2008 12:32 AM | Report abuse

I would consider ABUSE OF POWER to be unethical. But then again, I consider lots of things unethical. For instance, a preemptive war on a country based on false pretenses, or secret torture prisons, or illegal wiretapping, or ... gee this list could be long... I will spare you the details, you've heard it all before.

PALIN ABUSED POWER. That, JakeD, is unethical. And in case you missed the quote:

"...violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act"

She violated the Alaska Executive Branch ETHICS Act. Note the word. ETHICS. Back up a few words. VIOLATED.

Put them together.

VIOLATED ETHICS.

See?

Posted by: What part of VIOLATED ETHICS is challenging? | October 14, 2008 12:36 AM | Report abuse

I have OTOH argued that the Report, as a whole, cleared Gov. Palin of any legal wrongdoing and any hint of ethical activity.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:24 AM


UNethical (Freudian slip)

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:29 AM

If you were smart you'd call it a typo instead of a Freudian slip.

But you're not smart.

Posted by: JMarra | October 14, 2008 12:39 AM | Report abuse

I am sorry for all the Republican Trolling I have done here. I am just a paid operative of Karl Rove and his gang of thugs. Please do not share this with ANYONE or I won't get my paycheck and I will have to find another way to pay off my gambling debts and additiction to OxyContin...

I sincerely wish I could somehow openly admit that I am an Obama / Biden supporter, but that would seriously compromise my future employment in Rick Davis' lobbying firm once this McCain / Palin crater is in the history books. I am only able to do this in a way that can be plausibly denied. So here it is! Sorry, but it is the best I can do.

I will now go back to my regularly scheduled right wing rant-fest and deny that I ever wrote these words. Please understand. I am just doing this for the money. Oh and because I have no life.

Cheers.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Freudian slip, n.

A verbal mistake that is thought to reveal an unconscious belief, thought, or emotion.


Posted by: JMarra | October 14, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm just a smart alec?

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Gosh, JakeD, you sound just like one of those Ted Haggard Jimmy Swaggart confessin' types.

Posted by: JMarra | October 14, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Jake we keep hearing your opinions about Obama. How come you never say a word about the people Palin was hanging with. Joe Vogler said himself...

and if you think I am ever going to forget that, the fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American Government, and I won't be buried under their damn flag

You think this is okay Jake? But Barack OBama cannot have a middle name of Hussein. Is that right, Jake? The name Hussein makes him a terroist.

Posted by: Siggy | October 14, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

I don't know if she,Palin, did as they reported because I was not there and it does not matter because I judge people by how I recieve their characterization but I don't slander a person for the make up of the name either because this does not show the truth presentation of any one individual, what I do seem to recognize is the polariziot and the division that has been allow by racist and hypocrits to subdue the truth about the fear of the unknown and the ability of a nation to heal while trying to correct its wrongs amongst all of its citizens. You all should be very much ashamed because as long as the country id divided on the white elite win and most white are other than white, they are just able to recieve a pass.

Posted by: mercidee | October 14, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse


Is Sarah Palin's statement 'cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity' a flat lie?


http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=3763

.

Posted by: DBlake | October 14, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

That was the fake JakeD.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

You know what mercidee? You are the one who should be ashamed. Nothing more offensive for someone to come into a comment board wagging their finger all high and mighty telling people they should be ashamed. And who exactly named you the goody-two chairperson of this discussion? I find you condescending and even old Jakey is more palatable than you.

Further more, your comment about judging people is crap. The Alaskan government paid the committee to make a discovery and findings on the Palin Troopergate issue. And in the end, it is their opinion is important. And you are a fine one to talk about division with your narrow minded comment about white people.

Posted by: Siggy | October 14, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

To all trolls:

If she could fire him for any reason, why didn't she just fire him for any reason? Why did she have "1st dud" play the enforcer? Why all the threatening and posturing? See, this is where her ethics violation comes in. JUST FIRE THE DUDE!!! (DANG)
(Need a li'l ice for that kool-aid?)

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

Hey Jefferson, People just don't want to get it so don't waste your breath, they're way too busy in fantasy land thinking of Ms Palins legs and her husband, Mr "First Terrorist'" goatee...She is a liar, so what else is new, Americans are so used to it that they truly can't handle the truth Todd's mentor, Mr John Vogler was a terrorist, he wasn't a nice guy, he wasn't some benevolent figure head, he was all fire and brimstone and he meant my country true harm for sure, you doubt it? Look the group up ,get smart people, they are terrorists in the same vein as the Ok city bomber, fully intent on doing harm, he wrote it down for all to see......His "boy" Todd looked up to him as a hero.Todd wasn't 8 years old when he joined this group, he was a full grown adult and knew what they were up to,he wanted to play and he stayed at it for many years,Sarah was not only well aware of it but gave Todd her blessing, as far as I am concerned she is as implicated as her husband, the FBI should launch a full investigation into him and his buddies..Todd is a dangerous terrorist and ,yes, he is a terrorist by their own definition, not just mine.I can't imagine letting a man of this ill repute into the White House or ,for that matter even into living in the lower 48. He is a menace to our society with a bomber mentality and his wife will do anything ,she is completely corrupt. One does not join or bless a political party led by a radical like Mr John Vogler with blinders on

Posted by: Alladinsane | October 14, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Village Voice's Wayne Barrett's revelations on the last page of his feature, The Book of Sarah, expose even further conflicts of interest. This time the controversy is around the construction of Wasilla's hockey rink:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-08/news/the-book-of-sarah/5

Posted by: Susan G. | October 14, 2008 1:01 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, while we disagree, I must admit that I salute you!

You have been BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE FOR MORE THAN TWELVE HOURS! SARAH PALIN VIOLATED ETHICS (just read it) but YOU refuse to surrender!!

You are one seriously scary and fanatical person! You admit to siding with separatist looneys, be they in TEXAS or ALASKA (gee, I feel like Woody Guthrie is going to start singing THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND any moment now!)...

By supporting the PALINS and the AIP you are supporting the idea that it is cool to join a party where the founder dies in a MURDER while buying PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE3DB153CF936A25753C1A962958260

This Joe Vogler guy HATED America (fires of hell dontcha know) and HATED our flag! He said his country was his greatest enemy! Wow! And YOU, JakeD, support Palin even KNOWING that! AMAZING. AND WHAT STAMINA. I salute your steadfast, if fanatical, efforts to keep this sinking ship of McCain/Palin alive! May you have better luck and saner candidates NEXT TIME.

Posted by: JakeD is the Marathon Man! | October 14, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin doesn't get it. It's clear from the report that she abused her power by using her office or allowing her husband to use the office (of the Governor of Alaska) to settle personal dispute which lead to the firing of Monegan. Now, as to whether she has authority, as governor, to fire the Public Safety Commisioner is another issue. The fact is, she violated professional ethics in using her office or allowing her husband to use her office for personal benefit. Although she did not commit any criminal acts but what she has done is morally or ethically wrong. She failed to do what one holding public office is supposed to do. She did not understand the report maybe because she has no capacity to get it and i don't think she will.

Posted by: newssavy | October 14, 2008 1:10 AM | Report abuse

For the record, Bill Ayers girlfriend at the time was killed by the bomb they were making too. I never said I agreed with AIP or Texas Republic wackos either.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

>"The Great One (laughs) has lied on numerous occasions. His loyal toady automatons lack the sufficient number of brain cells to process the truth about their false messiah. From lying about his committment to public finance of his campaign to his very close relationship to the vile Rev Wright to his close connection with anti-American terrorists, Obama has a hard time with telling the truth. And he definitely does not belong in the White House. Palin has every right to complain about the partisan witchhunt she was subjected to. She had every right as an executive to fire the insubordinate Commissioner."

Posted by: Dave J

Got to love that logical disconnect. A long-ago acquaintance who held ONE (1) event in support of Obama somehow counts for more than law-breaking. Yes, she broke the law; not in firing, but in pursuing the vendetta - learn to read, dummy.

I just don't understand these folks who don't have the slightest compunction about spreading what some of them know to be lies. I'm not naive; I know they exist. But I will never understand how such people let themselves act without conscience. They are on both sides (witness the 'wife-abuse' smear on McCain) but the bulk of the ugliness has been directed at Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Smartie pants Sarah pulled the regulation requiring building permits in Wasilla while mayor,gave the huge contract for the hockey rink to some favored company and then had them build her huge house ,that Todd claims he built.Riiiiight.....This was the same company that did work for her buddy,the soon to be felon, Mr Ted Stevens. Some fellow from the Village Voice is doing some fact checking up there and it just gets better and better. A little tricky since she was smart enough to eliminate the need for building permits thereby eliminating any paper trail and she apparently,in a E.Gordon Liddy like move, destroyed or hid her records. And who said she's stupid?

Posted by: Alladinsane | October 14, 2008 1:14 AM | Report abuse

"Imagine that! This man wants to be VP and
can't even describe the job correctly! Almost everything he said was incorrect according to the U.S. Constitution!

How is this overlooked? Is the press that ignorant of the U.S. Constitution?"

Posted by Average American

Actually, that was Palin who said she didnt' know. Biden could answer it; that's why you didn't put any of that response you claim on: you don't have any. If you want to propagandize, try not leaving such obvious holes in your lies.

"2) How about she agrees to go back to Alaska on November 5th and talk to any legislator who wants to ask her any questions?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:37 PM "

Actually, they did want her to talk to them. She wouldn't. Thanks for making a point against Palin.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

To borrow from my favorite line in "Pirates of the Carribean":

The Code is more what you would call guidelines ...

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

OK, JakeD, I will stop picking on you then. Thank you for your steadfast belief in the system. I understand that your concern for the unborn is driving at least a part of this. I know you mean well, but I think you need to realize that things are not as simple as you seem to think they are.

Bill Ayers is a boogey man propped up by Rick Davis. He got his funding by the Annenbergs. Ambassador Leonore Annenberg gave FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS to Bill Ayers. Annenberg endorsed McCain/Palin and is listed proudly on there website. How is that possible? A person giving millions to a terrorist? They are turning a blind eye? Does it help to know there's a residence hall at Northwestern U. named after Ayer's father? Or that his father gave Arnold Weber (another McCain campaign contributor) a job? Strange world eh?

The folks that b-tch about Jeremiah Wright ignore Joe "fires of hell d-mned flag" Vogler.

Does it help to know that for five years, the Bush administration pursued ACORN and voter registration fraud? It cost Alberto Gonzales his JOB when he fired the reluctant state prosecutors, replacing them with his stooges but EVEN then, after FIVE YEARS, they were unable to bring a SINGLE CASE to trial, let along a successful conviction. Why is that?

You may be the real thing. You may not be a paid operative of the right wing smear army, but you sure play the role well. I wish you would direct your passion towards supporting a man that tried to run an honest campaign, not a man who dove into the mud the moment things went badly.

Posted by: Liberal Patriot | October 14, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/13/america/13martin.php

This is too perfect:the man behind one of the main smears on Obama turns out to be an anti-Semitic bigot after being featured on one of Sean Hannity's shows. I wonder how Mr. Hannity will get out of this one. It's going to be interesting to watch him squirm. After all, he only featured the guy to give anti-Obama smears some more circulation. He doesn't check out his guys that well or doesn't care: all you need be is a big anti-Democrat and you can get airtime. This time,though, he'll have to either say he let an anti-Semitic bigot vent on his show or admit he really doesn't care about those people's credibility.

Rumors already circulated, and been countered ably by Obama supporters and what I call 'information flow' on the internet debunking such smears and opposing them. It's generated by Obama Action Wire and FightTheSmears.com which gets people to send debunks of smears to email contacts and sets a unified counter-message that gets around on all the boards.THAT'S how you hit back.

Posted by: James | October 14, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

For the record, I already admitted that Gov. Palin is obviously too busy during this campaign to go back to Alaska for this investigation. That was my compromise suggestion. See my comments about the Clinton v. Jones case (above).

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

THIS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES>>> "Fingerprint tests show that human remains found in a gravel pit east of Fairbanks on Wednesday are those of Joe Vogler, the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, who vanished in May 1993, Alaska state troopers said today
The discovery of the remains, following an anonymous tip to the authorities, apparently resolves a year-and-a-half-old mystery concerning Mr. Vogler, a folk hero throughout the state who was 80 when he disappeared from his home here.
The blue tarp and duct tape in which the remains were wrapped, officials said, matched a description given by a convicted thief, Manfred West, who confessed last summer that he had killed Mr. Vogler in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad and had then buried him".
Folks.... these are the people that the Palins associate with, not at a Republican sponsered literary event where you might rub shoulders with someone who has a past ,no, these are the type of people that the Palins were proud to be with and belonged to Voglers violent, wackjob political party of separatists and bombers.What, did you think they were having a coffee clutch? This is not the clear signpost of a terrorist? Are you kidding? He was being funded by Iranians for gods sake and was stockpiling Plastique and TNT. And people are calling Obama a terrorist cause he rubbed shoulders with a wack with a past.Now that's a stretch.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 1:28 AM | Report abuse

Liberal Patriot:

Have I posted to you on this thread before?

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

FROM THE LIBERAL PATRIOT....."Bill Ayers is a boogey man propped up by Rick Davis. He got his funding by the Annenbergs. Ambassador Leonore Annenberg gave FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS to Bill Ayers. Annenberg endorsed McCain/Palin and is listed proudly on there website. How is that possible? A person giving millions to a terrorist? They are turning a blind eye? Does it help to know there's a residence hall at Northwestern U. named after Ayer's father? Or that his father gave Arnold Weber (another McCain campaign contributor) a job? Strange world eh"?
Having been involved with the SDS in Chicago,before I finally got drafted out of U of I in '68 ,the thing that always struck me about Ayers was it seemed to be more of a fashion statement, his father was ,I think,the head guy over at Commonwealth Edison and there always seemed to be money and chicks floating around .Now one other thing, you never seem to hear much from Ayers now, as this crap continues to go on, you think maybe Ayers is a little miffed at being discovered and given the cold shoulder from Obama?

Posted by: Alladinsane | October 14, 2008 1:37 AM | Report abuse

Maybe you are right. Sarah Palin did say she wasn't violating ethics, but the report does say something about her violating "Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act".

OK, sorry people. I hadn't really read it. I must have read something else.

Maybe I need to brush up a little bit on all of these new McCain campaign talking points. The campaign just published a new set today. They change a lot these days, what with all the erratic behavior by Sen. McCain.

First it was "thanks but no thanks for the bridge" but that one was shot full of holes almost before Sarah uttered it at the RNC, and that "jet sold on ebay for a profit" quote turned out to be a major falsehood too, and from an evangelical Christian! Who would have believed it!

On this one, I was SURE this whole deal about Sarah "not violating ethics" would work out fine, but now I guess I am just being proven wrong again. Gosh darn it!

This is getting embarrassing!

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

LOL fake JakeD. Gov. Palin never said she "sold" the jet on eBay. Nice try though.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Sorry about that JakeD, there's too many comments to read through them all.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 1:58 AM | Report abuse

For the record, I've read all the comments AND the Report. Kinda important to intelligently discuss the issues.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

JakeD.. you say your a lawyer? Retired? because you dont make much sense and I would have you try a case of the mumps to be totally honest.

The fact that you post on this board at all hours speaks volumes about a lack of social activity (aka.. get a life.) you might actually learn something.

Turn off Fox .. put down the Hannity books and BillO Luffa.

Grab a cup of joe and take a walk in the sun.

Posted by: SarahsDaddy | October 14, 2008 2:13 AM | Report abuse

Hey JakeD,are you really Sarah Palin? Huh? Never know until you ask.....

Posted by: Alladinsane | October 14, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

"it is the reverse of the truth"

Enough with the euphemisms. When is the media going to have the courage to call a lie a LIE?

Posted by: DogBitez | October 14, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

“Abuse of power” is in the eye of the beholder. References of “Col. Grimes telling Wooten he is unfit to be a trooper because of a pattern of bad and unethical behavior” must be part of any assessment. Also, just because there is a family connection in the matter should not chill a governor from acting in the public interest. Governor Palin clearly had unique insight into the Wooten issues because of this. Mike Wooten had issues that cast a cloud over his public service . . . he’s actually owned up to them. I haven’t seen where Wooten is defended any where as a role model as a trooper. All evidence seems to point to the contrary. So, there were surely other lines of work better suited to his temperament. Since the accusations, and her knowledge and insight, were extraordinary, her response might be judged as mild in the circumstances. Perhaps she should have acted more aggressively and sooner. This perspective seems obvious here, well warranted, and due for greater consideration – in the interest of being fair and balanced.

Posted by: Geoffrey | October 14, 2008 3:58 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, earlier you wrote:

"You only think that Republicans do that -- Robert Kennedy KILLED Mary Jo Koepke..."

When I come across people like yourself--those who are quite obviously punching above their weight, don't realize it, and are doing so with undeserved arrogance--I always find myself torn between pity and contempt. Contempt usually prevails, however.

With that in mind, in response to the umpteen times you declared yourself a "trivia buff" who is "interested in names", you might find it less humiliating in the future to recall that the Kennedy to whom you were referring is TEDDY, not Robert; and that the young woman in the car with him was MARY JO KOPECHNE, not "Mary Jo Koepke".

You know, given your desire to "educate".

Your arguments regarding Palin are of similar reliability.

Posted by: Keith M Ellis | October 14, 2008 4:28 AM | Report abuse

My middle name is MARGARET. That's Persian for "Pearl". Am I a potential Iranian terrorist/extremist now in some paranoid people's minds? Spare us the capitalised HUSSEINs already. It shows you up as an ignoramus, that's all it does.

Posted by: Julia Iskandar | October 14, 2008 5:14 AM | Report abuse

Slowly, surely, insurmountably, Palin is losing any attractive quality she once wallowed in as we see just what John McCain found so attractive in her.

Posted by: Rob | October 14, 2008 5:32 AM | Report abuse

Being a "team player" for a republican administration, be it in Alaska or Washington amounts to the same thing.
Break the spirit of the law or be broken yourself.

Posted by: paul94611 | October 14, 2008 6:20 AM | Report abuse

Alladinsane:

No, I am not Gov. Palin.

Keith:

That's really the only mistake you could find out of hundreds of posts yesterday -- I think I also pointed out a typo re: "unethical" -- considering how fast and furious it was, single-handedly defending the innocent, you will forgive me one slip. Luckily, for me, one cannot legally defame the dead.

Margaret:

First, you are not running for President or Vice President, so your middle name is worthless information. B) without knowing more about you, I would have to guess that the chance you are a terrorist is less than Barack HUSSEIN Obama. In conclusion, my friends, I doubt many "ignoramuses" graduate at the top of their law school class.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 6:28 AM | Report abuse

reading over the comments and blogs on sarah palin, now i know how very interesting this woman is....she certainly has something in her that could finally bring her to the white house!!!!
anyway, tons of pinocchios to michael dobbs....LOL!

Posted by: coi | October 14, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

"Whether or not the Branchflower report -- which was launched by a bipartisan committee -- was a partisan smear job is debatable."

How are the facts of the report debatable? If they are facts, then she is guilty and then there's no smear job. The statement seems a strange attempt at journalistic objectivity, but why shade the truth and call that "objective"?

Posted by: Viking | October 14, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Palin has brought the republican party down. She lies and smears. she is not worthy of any office in my opinion. McCain is suffering from his poor choice for a running mate. Can you imagine this person as President????? She should go home.

Posted by: Audrey Marie | October 14, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Jake D, can you please continue to post everybody's middle name in all caps? I'm a trivia lover too. It's very important that we know every public figure's middle name.

Posted by: Thank you sir, may I have another | October 14, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

Here is what is clear from the report:
A - Palin had the legal authority to fire Monegan for any or no reason.
B - Firing Monegan was not an ethics violation.
C - Exerting pressure, and allowing her husband and staff to exert pressure on Monegan for personal reason WAS an ethics violation.

JakeD, it is clear that you are a one-issue voter. Please don't pretend to care about ethics. Your only concern is abortion and how you can impose your views on everyone else.

Posted by: tw | October 14, 2008 8:32 AM | Report abuse

4 more years of unilateral decision making and personal agenda/gains

Posted by: Brad | October 14, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

To thank you sir, may I have another:

You are hilarious!

Posted by: yes man | October 14, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

tw:

Abortion is all about ethics, treating the "least of these" as we would treat ourselves.

Those of you also interested in middle names:

I will try to find the full list I posted during the primaries.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

It is my experance that most police think they are above the law. I enjoy seeing them get caned. Top dogs need to be gone if they are bad. So I feel that makes for a firm McCain for 08. Any one brave enough to do that needs a higher office!

Posted by: Dale | October 14, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Audrey Marie:

Yes, I can imagine.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Palin has shown herself to be a vindictive nasty person....is this the kind of Christanity that they espouse in Alaska?

Posted by: GladIamCanadian | October 14, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

JakeD
I understand that you have specific beliefs regarding when human life begins, and I respect your views even if I don't agree with them. You are welcome to present arguments, try to convince those who do no agree with you with logic or passion. What I do not respect is your focus on legislating those beliefs, as if your 'ethics' are somehow intrinsically better than anyone else's.

As far as 'treating the least' etc..., which of these fit that definition:
* Hunting animals in their own habitat from helicopters?

* Demanding people quit their only source of income as a 'loyalty test'?

* Determining someone's qualifications for office based upon their middle name/past acquaintances?

Posted by: tw | October 14, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Even Colbert said with a straight face last night that Palin is "the woman we need to manage this crisis."

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I am not here to convince anyone. See Advocate, Devil's (above).

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Dobbs:

As you note the report finds that Palin violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

As the Anchorage Daily News notes:

'In plain English, she did something "unlawful." She broke the state ethics law.'

Please retract your bizarre claim that:

'Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of "legal wrongdoing,"'

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

Posted by: Crust | October 14, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

JakeD, you do realize that Colbert does satire, right?

Posted by: Crust | October 14, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

This episode with Sarah Palin and the Branchflower report highlights one of the most disturbing things about her - the ease and eagerness with which she lies.

When John McCain has made false assertions on the campaign trail, which to his discredit was his principle campaign strategy coming out of the Republican convention, he seemed uncomfortable doing it.

No such reticence for Sarah Palin.

As the Fact Checker here makes clear (and anyone can confirm this by looking at the report) the Republican-led bipartisan committee found that she abused her office in pursuing a personal vendetta.

Her claim that she was cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity" is as blatant a lie as one can imagine. And she seems so chipper and gleeful while uttering it.

A vindictive, conscienceless liar as our potential next President? (And, on present evidence, a willfully ignorant one at that.)

John McCain - what have you done?

Posted by: Carey | October 14, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Dobbs:

Just to be 100% clear, Palin's claim was that she was "cleared of any legal wrongdoing". Note that key word "any". Whether you like it or not, the report found that she was guilty of legal wrongdoing. It is true she was cleared of one specific kind of legal wrongdoing (she was within her legal rights to fire Monegan). But that doesn't make her -- or your -- statement accurate.

Posted by: Crust | October 14, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I wonder how many Republicans splitting hairs for Ms. Palin about how "no hint" and "unethical" and whatever should be interpreted were screaming for "Slick Willie's" head over "the definition of 'is'."

And I wonder how many Democrats were just as willing to give Pres. Clinton the slide on it.

I am no fan of Ms. Palin's, for (among DOZENS of other things) the same reason JakeD is FOR her. I find her "no abortions for absolutely any reason whatsoever" stance to be way too fanatical; her ties to fundamentalist Christianity to be way too close; her refusal to believe that there is any man-made contribution to global warming to be laughable; her belief that homosexuality can be "prayed away" to be dangerous.

She's Jerry Falwell in a skirt, and I won't have that within a heartbeat of the presidency.

Posted by: Nacho | October 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Palin did not abuse her power. She talked to Monegan about Wooten two times and neither time did she put undue pressure to fire Wooten or tell him to fire Wooten.
Here are some other key points on Troopegate exposing it.
1. Branchflower had ties to Monegan. Meaning he would like to help clear him.
2. Four or Five members on the Panel had reasons to get back at Palin.
3. Members of that same panel did not agree with the findings of Branchflower.
4. Branchflower did not prove that Palin used her office for financial or personal gain. Which had to happen to violate the ethics act.
5. Alaska's Personnel Board Investiagtion decides if she abused her power. Branchflower was only to figure out if she was in her rights to fire Moneagan

Posted by: Ty | October 14, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Crust:

Yes. But I was responding in Audrey Marie, and any good satire still rings true.

Carey:

Gov. Palin did not "lie". See "Finding Number Two" above which cleared her of any violation of law (the ethic statute you guys keep referencing is still a "law"). Unless you have a different definition of "proper" and "lawful" than the rest of us?

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Thank you sir, may I have another:

Joseph ROBINETTE Biden, Jr.
Hillary DIANE Clinton,
Christopher JOHN Dodd
Johnny REID Edwards
Maurice ROBERT Gravel
Dennis JOHN Kucinich
Barack HUSSEIN Obama
William BLAINE Richardson III

Rudolph WILLIAM LOUIS Giuliani
Michael DALE Huckabee
John SIDNEY McCain III
Ronald KKK Paul
Willard MITT Romney (that's right, we've been using his MIDDLE name this whole time!)

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

I wish I could stay and play more (but I think I've said my piece on this topic -- re-read the "sky is blue / orange" analogy if you still don't understand my position -- again, I'm not here to convince anyone otherwise). My wife and I have already voted for McCain-Palin. See you all after a round of golf.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Hi JakeD,

I can see that you are reading the Report in the same way that Sarah Palin does, with a thick cardboard covering everything else except the part you and she like.

You also refer to the Report like she does.
If you want to refer to the report, you have to include everything in the report. I am pretty sure I am not the only person who notice the part about her abuse of power and her unethical behavior.

You may want to read the report again before making all these nonsense comments again.

Posted by: Julius | October 14, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

obama is unqualified for
the position of president.
If he was white he would
be laughed off the stage.
This is oddly bizarre that
this liberal 'free at last'
codependent american state
is what you fools will leave
to your children.
HUGE SPENDING....
a government financed home
for everyone, on the backs
of america's working middle
class, we seem able to pay
for bailouts and social 'programs'
but we cant come up with the money
to send our kids to Harvard.
where do we sign up for the
obama train of freebies???

LostInWhiteAmerica

Nobama

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is a troll, so what.

Posted by: Mark | October 14, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

take a crack at cocaine,
goat farming
harvard law
homeless people voting,
now mickey mouse is liberal
democratic too,
and what to do?
I'm going to stop paying
my mortgage, and I'll draw down
my 401K penalty free.
go on a spending spree.
finally free!
fianlly Free!

Posted by: sugar | October 14, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

got a job at the Acorn office,
i'm on the streets
turning in sheets
bama is paying my wages
and says I will have the american
dream, my own home,
on the back of doz' stupid
crackers paying the bills'
SweetOHhhhbamaYEah!

Posted by: SweetOHhhhbamaYEah | October 14, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Jake D: You said you're looking for a fact checker for Obama. FactCheck.Org checks information from debates, speeches, etc for the McCain and Obama campaign.

Pete: I think you bring up a question that is on many people's minds.... being an ethical person versus abiding by laws. I take into consideration the character and the consistent behavior of the candidates just as much as I do the issues because I think that will speak to their behavior as a President and their choosing of a cabinet. I think other Americans should keep this in mind too as they chose a candidate to vote for.

All: I assume we are all adults in this discussion, although the conversation does not seem to illustrate that. Can we all bring it down a notch and be a good example to all four candidates running for office and not make personal attacks or judgments about parties? JakeD, it isn't helpful when someone says they have read the article to challenge that... that's immature. Come up with something else if you disagree with them instead of challenging their intelligence.

Posted by: Emmi | October 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

No surprise that she would try to spin this ... bold faced. I'm sorry that Mr. Monegan lost his job and a reputation of a lifetime had to teeter for a while, but speaking up like this with timing and in the right way will ultimately serve him in many ways. Doors will open for him in surprising ways and he can know beyond a doubt and be heartened by real friends who risked for him. ... this is coming from experience. It takes courage.

Posted by: Alohaakamai | October 14, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

What a nightmare for American politics. Again, this is just another example of McCain's poor judgement abilities. How could he select this liar, and abuser to be his running mate? Ron Paul where are you?

Posted by: Henry | October 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm not concerned about Palin's "legal wrongdoing"! What about her "illegal" wrongdoing?

Posted by: John in DC | October 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

@Bob: Not only will Dobbs most likely follow your advice to "just vote for Obama," so will the majority of hard-working, patriotic Americans that are sick and tired of the faux-conservative status quo. Thanks!

Franklin Hussein
Former Republicans for Obama

Posted by: Franklin Hussein | October 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Palin stated that she was against "the old boy" network. Well, she actually is bedding down with them. To state that she didn't commit anything unethical, when the report states she violated that particular Ethics Act is reprehensible. Goes to show you that John McCain can't be trusted either. Since his Keating Scandal, he has shown himself to be a "maverick" in one arena--aligning himself with those who lie, cheat, and commit heinous political acts. I hope he loses big time!

Posted by: Rosemarie A Stone | October 14, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Emmi:

I was not the one calling others "liars", "hypocrites", subject to "fanaticism", "fearmongering, hatemongering, unthinking, venom-spewing, racist", "wearing blinders", claiming "The world will think Americans are even more stupid if we go from Cheney to Palin", or (my personal favorite) that my use of the candidate's middle name was "a religious smear".

Rosemarie A. Stone:

I hope he wins. Keep reading the Report, specifically after that "Finding Number One" you are relying on, the Report specifically states, at "Finding Number Two":

"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, 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."

Gotta go tee off now.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

At this point, it does not matter if Palin was within her legal right to fire Monegan because the FIRST finding was that she HAD breached the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. That she did not do so for money DOES NOT matter, because there are infinite types of personal gain. In this case, she seems to have done it to INDULGE and ABET an unethical and illegal PERSONAL vendetta. It demonstrates that Palin is unethical and vindictive.

And now, she publicly and without being "set up" by the media, tells a blatant, boldfaced lie about the findings? Such an obvious falsehood is not political spinning, it is not campaigning, it is clearly pathological.

In addition to poor judgment and poor impulse control, this particular lie also demonstrates ABJECT contempt for the Legislature. A person who has such gross disregard for the truth, the public and its laws is NOT fit for office. I implore the Legislature to sanction Palin, Alaskans to impeach her, and Americans to VOTE against her!

Posted by: Qohelet | October 14, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"I can't believe I wasted 90 seconds skimming this. "

Yeah, perhaps if you had actually READ it, you would see that she lied by claiming that she was cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps if you had actually READ the report, you would see that she didn't lie since she was cleared of any improper or unlawful (which necessarily includes unethical) activity as to Monegan's firing.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

JakeD has amazing powers of self-delusion. He can read a report with the following sentence (it's on page 8 Jake):

"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

(Gee, a legal statue regarding ethics!). And then find that Caribou Barbie did not do anything illegal or unethical. In the sense she has not yet been convicted of the charge, that's true.

So, what's next for the ignorant, lying piece of arctic filth? No doubt an investigation on her illegally commenting on a ballot referendum, avoiding (or evading) payment of federal income taxes, and probably more salacious details about her involvement in the Alaska Independence Party.

Ah, how entertaining. Something to keep the truly stupid engaged while the Republican Party steals the country blind.

Posted by: DDS | October 14, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Goodness, Gidget can lie, can't she. And with that gee-whiz, cheeky appeal that makes me think it's all so fun.

Posted by: JMFulton, Jr | October 14, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Not that anyone needs to be told, but it is clear that Dobbs is a liberal hack. But what else would one expect form the Washington ComPost.

I checked the last Pinocchio test, bout Obama and Ayers. It is clear from a number of sources, including liberal CNN Anderson Cooper, that this relationship is much deeper than he claims.

The number of character blotches on Obama, and particularly on Joe "The Plagiarist" Biden for outnumber those on either Gov. Palin or John McCain.

Posted by: ScottVA | October 14, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

THIS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES>>> "Fingerprint tests show that human remains found in a gravel pit east of Fairbanks on Wednesday are those of Joe Vogler, the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, who vanished in May 1993, Alaska state troopers said today
The discovery of the remains, following an anonymous tip to the authorities, apparently resolves a year-and-a-half-old mystery concerning Mr. Vogler, a folk hero throughout the state who was 80 when he disappeared from his home here.
The blue tarp and duct tape in which the remains were wrapped, officials said, matched a description given by a convicted thief, Manfred West, who confessed last summer that he had killed Mr. Vogler in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad and had then buried him".
Folks.... these are the people that the Palins associate with, not at a Republican sponsered literary event where you might rub shoulders with someone who has a past ,no, these are the type of people that the Palins were proud to be with and belonged to Voglers violent, wackjob political party of separatists and bombers.What, did you think they were having a coffee clutch? This is not the clear signpost of a terrorist? Are you kidding? He was being funded by Iranians for gods sake and was stockpiling Plastique and TNT. And people are calling Obama a terrorist cause he rubbed shoulders with a wack with a past.Now that's a stretch.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

FROM THE LIBERAL PATRIOT....."Bill Ayers is a boogey man propped up by Rick Davis. He got his funding by the Annenbergs. Ambassador Leonore Annenberg gave FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS to Bill Ayers. Annenberg endorsed McCain/Palin and is listed proudly on there website. How is that possible? A person giving millions to a terrorist? They are turning a blind eye? Does it help to know there's a residence hall at Northwestern U. named after Ayer's father?Or that it was suspected that Ayers was an inside government plant,a mole.He was more afraid of what any remaining members of his underground group would do to him that he was of prison. Or that his father gave Arnold Weber (another McCain campaign contributor) a job? His father was the CEO of ComEd. Strange world eh"?

Posted by: WAKEUP | October 14, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

As much as I'm loath to admit it, I think you guys are right. She abused her power by behaving unethically even though she was not behaving unlawfully. Thanks for all the helpful explanations. I think I'm starting to feel a little bit of buyer's remorse on the absentee ballots that I cast for McCain/Palin.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

If the worst people can say about Palin is that "her husband tried to get a trooper fired that deserved to be fired," that's not going to worry me. This is a small issue compared to other things going on right now.

In my opinion, the author of the report really made a stretch in trying to show Palin violated the ethics code.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

sarah flailen is only guilty of one offense,being stupid,and that is not a crime punishable by jail time. She (though to her credit)is just as smart as john Mcbomb. If they get elected the first missle will leave it's silo within the first 15 minutes. Why are we worried about the economy there won't be anything left to worry about except cockroaches. I am still voting Mcbomb/Flailen though I think they have some dandy idears.Like the one about shooting wolves from a plane. I get flying around in my plane bored out of my mind, this would spice up the trip. Another good idear is inciting race riots,thats a beaut. I have wondered for years how to start a good riot. You go fetch yourself a whole load of them there good OL boys and girls and get them whipped into a frenzy and just like that bam! and I do mean BAM!

Posted by: denny | October 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Vogler was murdered in 1993 during an illegal sale of plastic explosives that went bad. The prior year, he had renounced his allegiance to the United States explaining that, “The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government.” He cursed the stars and stripes, promising, “I won’t be buried under their damned flag…when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.” Palin has never denounced Vogler or his detestable anti-Americanism.

Palin’s husband Todd remained an AIP party member from 1995 to 2002. Sarah can be described in McCarthy-era palaver as a “fellow traveler.” While retaining her Republican registration, she attended the AIP’s 1994 convention where the party called for a draft constitution to secede from the United States and create an independent nation of Alaska. The McCain Campaign has reluctantly acknowledged that she also attended AIP’s 2000 Convention. She apparently found the experience so inspiring that she agreed to give a keynote address at the AIP’s 2006 convention and she recorded a video greeting for this year’s 2008 convention. In other words, this is not something that happened when she was eight!

Posted by: anti terror | October 14, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Mr. Dobbs should look up the words ‘vague’ and ‘ambiguous’, this law could be applied to almost any action taken by a politician.

Posted by: Doug | October 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

She had the authority to fire someone and she exercised that authority.

*YAWN*

I can't believe I wasted 90 seconds skimming this.

Dobbs, just vote for Obama and get it over with.

Posted by: Bob | October 13, 2008 12:21 PM

===========================================
"I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

This is from page 8 of the report. The last time I saw wording like this regarding an elected official, it was about Richard Nixon.

Palin broke the law, plain and simple.
Only the AK. legislature may punish, or impeach her for this, however it gives Monegan the right to bring civil suit against her, which he is doing.
Palin's lies about the entire reason she fired him, gives him that right.
If enough AK. citizens petition the legislature she may be impeached yet.

Posted by: Martha | October 14, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Anyone concerned about how much access the first dude had in the Govs office? I read that Todd quit his job in management at the oil company because of a possible conflict of interest once she took office. But soon took a labor job there (because they needed money - guess the cost of living in Alaska must be worse than NY, LA, SF, CH, ATL, etc.). But do we really know if there are favors to oil? Certainly, if he had the access to harass through proxy Wooten, he might have other access re: big oil. Do we really need another White House who thinks government should be replaced by big biz?

Posted by: Kym | October 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

55i6frvlyyxlui http://www.160887.com/904493.html > ob2fani7ra [URL=http://www.937202.com/1055354.html] cukpspapfo [/URL] 4a4gp4za

Posted by: q68zt23go9 | October 14, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Palin abuses her power to fire a state trooper, woop-dee-doo. I am more concerned about people believing in Obama and his false messages. The things he preaches are the same thing all politicians preach, but it is rarely ever exercised or approached. The only time they get something accomplished is when it's to late, just like our economy. Don't believe in Obama and HIS agenda because it's all about power to him. He will lead this country into more termoil and with a name like Barrack Hussien Obama, it would be a disgrace to this country. I have never seen so much junk mail from the Obama campaigne and now he is buying up primetime and to me he is just trying to brainwash people into thinking his is the chosen one. He is nothing, but a young lawyer who feeds on his own egotistic lifestyle while blinding his supporters with garbage.

Posted by: James | October 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Palin did not abuse her powers. One guy named Branchflower can't convict her. The fact everyone is ignoring is that Branchflower has ties to Monagan. Which means he should not be investigating this matter. This means that Branchflower's investigation is abusing his powers. One guy can't convict her without proof.

Posted by: Tim | October 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I decided not to play golf after all. I thought it would be more fun to stick the head of my driver into my anus while I masturbated to pictures of Sarah Palin.

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is the only true conservative in this race. She is the next star of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Tim | October 14, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty easy to tell when Sarah Palin's lying: her lips are usually moving.

I simply cannot fathom how some of you morons actually think this bimbo is even remotely qualified to be President of the United States.

Just to give you a hint of how the McCain campaign is in complete disarray, Larry Flynt (yeah, THAT Larry Flynt) is making a porn movie with a Palin-lookalike called "Nailin' Palin" (love that name). The McCain campaign actually BOUGHT in as an official sponsor on Flynt's Website without realizing what it was all about. Unbelievable.

Posted by: owiz | October 14, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Burt:

So, I guess that means that smears against Obama using Ayers is an acceptable tactic?

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 1:48 PM


No that Burt's statements means demonstrates that the the Main Stream Media is being unfair by not investigating Mrs. Palin's ties to these organizations. While, Obama's ties to Ayers have been reviewed heavily by most of the main news sources. Nor has the MSM investigated McCain's Transition Team leaders, William Timmons past as an unregistered agent for Saddam Hussein's government.

I would call that more unfair coverage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595.html

Posted by: BH-Independent | October 14, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

charges against the trooper.

The man threatend to kill her father which is felony assault...then she would not have had any trouble getting rid of him...he'd be off the force by conviction and possibly in jail.

Posted by: Palin should have filed | October 14, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I have to disagree with the four Pinocchios on this one. Every statement from Palin that I have heard her make is that she is very pleased to have been cleared of any legal wrongdoing in the firing of the public safety commissioner. Her statements are always put in the context of the positive finding in which she was cleared, and Palin has said nothing about the pressure to fire the trooper, where she was found to have violated the ethics law.

Palin is shading the truth severely here, and she probably deserves at least two or three Pinocchios, but when she says that she is glad to have been cleared of any wrongdoing in firing the public safety commissioner, she isn't telling a lie. She is glad, and she was cleared of any wrongdoing on that one charge. However, by focusing only on that one charge and ignoring the other, she is also severely spinning the truth.

Of course, this is no more than a committee finding, and the legislature may well reject the findings and choose not to charge Palin, so the Branchflower report may not amount to much.

Posted by: blert | October 14, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

If you want to duck the point, go ahead and argue that she can fire the guy, and therefore she's clean as a whistle. That wasn't the issue. never was, never will be. she can. but Wooten had already been disciplined, Monegan had no legal authority to change the discipline, the Palin's knew that, but wanted to get him anyway. the unethical behavior was having Todd use the governors office to pressure Monegan and others to trump up a reason to fire Wooten, placing them in untenable positions. firing Monegan was just the vindictive part when no one would cave. and monetary gain is not the issue. using your office for any personal agenda, financial or otherwise, is unethical.

Posted by: JoeT | October 14, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Mad American:

A "superpower" is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a "great power". The term, in its current political meaning, was coined in the book "The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union – Their Responsibility for Peace" (1944), written by William T.R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor.

Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon." China cannot (yet) do that, whatever else you think it can do.

After the Cold War, the most common belief among political scientists held that only the United States fulfills the criteria to be considered a true superpower, although it is admittedly a matter of current debate whether the U.S. is a hegemon or if it is losing its superpower status. China, the European Union, India and Russia are also thought to have the "potential" of achieving superpower status within the 21st century. Yet others doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.

I hope that helps.

Posted by: Political Scientist | October 14, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I also agree with TimInMT. The United States is not a true direct Democracy, and there are many differences between that and a Democratic Republic.

Posted by: Political Scientist | October 14, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

When asked how living in the state closest to Russia gave her foreign-policy experience....

Palin responded with this blathering stupidity...

"It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go?
It's Alaska. It's just right over the border.

It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there.

They are right next to—to our state."
. "It is from Alaska that we send out those …"

[Ridiculious.....Unless Putin's head is 900 miles wide and can fly...]

peeeuuu Palin has been given a set of talking points by campaign advisers, simple ideological lies that she repeats and repeats as long as she can.

"Domestic Terrorist..."

She sounds like a retarted parrot...

But if forced off those pathetically rehearsed lines, what she has to say is often, quite frankly, moronic...

Couric asked her a smart question about the proposed $700 billion bailout of the American financial sector.

peeeuuu Palin had tried to get her empty skull and longhair around the problem in this crisis is that credit and liquidity in the financial system has dried up, and that that's why, in the estimation of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke, the government needs to step in to buy up Wall Street's most toxic liabilities.

And peeuuu Palins further non-sensical rantings...

COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?

PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.

What????
What does that mean?
I'll tell you what that means...she is a fraud an "empty bag" with no tricks inside it.....

....A heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States...

...Please remember that tirade above when you cast your vote November 4th...

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 14, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"According to Branchflower, the Palins declined to cooperate fully with his investigation."


That "according to Branchflower" is priceless. It's of course also objective fact as widely reported in the Post and elsewhere.

Posted by: Crust | October 14, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is asking all of us to select her as our leader who is prepared to replace John McCain if and when he is elected President. To be such a leader, she must be accountable for her past actions. The finding of the Alaska independent investigator tells us that
- She adhered to the law
- She abused her power

Her public statements tell us that she does not believe she abused her power.

If she is elected to Vice President and assumes the Presidency, it is likely she will abuse the President's power to her own benefit.

Past is prologue.

Posted by: PaulM | October 14, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

"Past is prologue."

Then Obama's past actions with unrepentant terrorists are relevant.

Posted by: Political Scientist | October 14, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

She had the authority to fire someone and she exercised that authority.

*YAWN*

I can't believe I wasted 90 seconds skimming this."

Both you and Palin skimmed too fast. Very first line in the report says she VIOLATED ALASKA'S ETHICS LAW and abused her power.

Does Kool Aid make you blind, too?

Posted by: Justin Passing | October 14, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm back from golfing -- nice try, fake JakeD(s) -- I found this response to from the Palin family attorneys on-line too:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/11/response.branchflower.report.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Political Scientist,
Obama's past actions are relevant.
The comparison to a neighborhood fundraiser for schools to abuse of the ethics law is not relevant nor logical.
Paul M

Posted by: PaulM | October 14, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

This woman is not vp material or material for much else. In my opionion -- If she had a real brain she would take it out and play with it!!!.....then she would put lipstick on it!!!

Posted by: Tj Morrison | October 14, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Todd Palin's side of the story (I need to retract my comment above about Monegan being fired -- I have not seen the actual paperwork -- Todd believes that Monegan indeed resigned rather than accept the reassignment):

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/10/08/todd.palin.10.08.08.pdf

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

lets jump back a little here folks. you people are way to serious about sarah and john.don't you realize you are missing the best comedy act since abbott and costello.this is way to funny to get mad about. we need to keep a sense of humor and maybe a little love for our fellow man.

Posted by: denny | October 14, 2008 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for the liberal MSM heads to explode when McCain-Palin win!

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

"I can't wait for the liberal MSM heads to explode when McCain-Palin win!"

'next canard?'

Posted by: Joe Sixpack | October 14, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

You think (a) McCain-Palin will win and/or (b) MSM heads will explode is the "canard"?

Posted by: JakeD | October 14, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

But...but...MOM...Obama does it, too!!! Waaahaa. Republicans, conservatives grow up and do what Palin refuses to do. Hold her accountable for what she obviously did do. Vote for if you want but stop whining and trying to change the subject. She got caught!

Posted by: Joy M. | October 14, 2008 9:27 PM | Report abuse

There's a brand new version of Sarah's famous exorcism. Completely insane!

Go here---> http://tinyurl.com/spookee

.

Posted by: Tom M | October 14, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

I just hate black people.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 2:58 AM | Report abuse

The Mccain/Palin ticket is the ticket of lies and they spend their time trying to accuses their opponents of lies and being untrustworthy. A vote for Mccain/Palin is a vote for disaster.

Posted by: Brenda | October 15, 2008 4:40 AM | Report abuse

****AMERICA SHOULD BE FEARFULLY CONCERNED****

!!CORRUPTION!!
The Alaska Supreme Court has cleared for release to the public the Alaska State Legislature's (mostly Republicans) highly anticipated investigative report on whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power.

(note) Troopergate: In plain English, Sarah Palin has been PROVEN she broke Alaska State Ethics Law in abusing her power in pushing for the firing of a State Trooper once married to her sister and by ALLOWING her husband Todd Palin to use the Alaska Governor's Office in a crusade against the officer. Palin is found by Alaska Legislative Investigation (LAW) of Firing without reasonable "just cause" the Alaska State Public Safety Commissoner Walt Monegan.

ALASKA GOVERNOR Palin RECALL!
I am a Alaskan life voting Republican. This 2008 Election, I will [with pleasure] vote Democrat!

McCains V.P. selection Sarah Palin unequivocally has NO business being the Alaska Governor, let alone, a USA Candidate for Vice President…..

Maverick??.....”AMERICA SHOULD BE FEARFULLY CONCERNED”

I voted for Sarah Palin in Alaskas 2006 Governor Election. MISTAKE!.... Never Again… I repeat-NEVER AGAIN!!....Alaska Governor Palin is an absolute Embarrassment to the Alaska People(s) and "IS PROVEN” over and over to be an insatiable Liar!!...

How can she possibly ASSUME to possess the ability to clean up America, when she cannot clean the progressive ''MESS" She has created…then left Alaska to run for the United States V.P.? Yes,---Left “HER and Her husband todd palins” Mess FOR Alaskans to Clean-Up!!

MCCAIN, you should be ASHAMED of yourself!!!! This victim (palin) has no business in this Presidential Arena.

Posted by: AlaskanVoter

Thank You McClatchyde.com Truth News
AlaskaPolitics adn.com
Posted by: Alaskanvoter | October 15, 2008 5:33 AM

Posted by: AlaskanVoter | October 15, 2008 6:01 AM | Report abuse

****AMERICA SHOULD BE FEARFULLY CONCERNED****

!!CORRUPTION!!
The Alaska Supreme Court has cleared for release to the public the Alaska State Legislature's (mostly Republicans) highly anticipated investigative report on whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power.

(note) Troopergate: In plain English, Sarah Palin has been PROVEN she broke Alaska State Ethics Law in abusing her power in pushing for the firing of a State Trooper once married to her sister and by ALLOWING her husband Todd Palin to use the Alaska Governor's Office in a crusade against the officer. Palin is found by Alaska Legislative Investigation (LAW) of Firing without reasonable "just cause" the Alaska State Public Safety Commissoner Walt Monegan.

ALASKA GOVERNOR Palin RECALL!
I am a Alaskan life voting Republican. This 2008 Election, I will [with pleasure] vote Democrat!

McCains V.P. selection Sarah Palin unequivocally has NO business being the Alaska Governor, let alone, a USA Candidate for Vice President…..

Maverick??.....”AMERICA SHOULD BE FEARFULLY CONCERNED”

I voted for Sarah Palin in Alaskas 2006 Governor Election. MISTAKE!.... Never Again… I repeat-NEVER AGAIN!!....Alaska Governor Palin is an absolute Embarrassment to the Alaska People(s) and "IS PROVEN” over and over to be an insatiable Liar!!...

How can she possibly ASSUME to possess the ability to clean up America, when she cannot clean the progressive ''MESS" She has created…then left Alaska to run for the United States V.P.? Yes,---Left “HER and Her husband todd palins” Mess FOR Alaskans to Clean-Up!!

MCCAIN, you should be ASHAMED of yourself!!!! This victim (palin) has no business in this Presidential Arena.

Posted by: AlaskanVoter

Thank You McClatchyde.com Truth News
AlaskaPolitics adn.com
Posted by: Alaskanvoter | October 15, 2008 5:33 AM

Posted by: AlaskanVoter | October 15, 2008 6:01 AM | Report abuse

Why is it then you question an Obama?Biden Fact Check it's simply a neutral headline. But you need to telgraph the number in Palin's.
Bias?

Posted by: BJLeone | October 15, 2008 7:14 AM | Report abuse

The fact is, Palin would be the WORST V.P. this country has ever seen. I am astonished by how many uninformed, "LAZY" people who do not do their homework on the candidates, say that Palin would be a better V.P. than Biden. Who is more experienced here? And if experience isn't the real question, then why do these "die-hard" Republicans make this fact their number one defense when it comes to McCain vs. Obama.

Even many Republicans and Conservatives are starting to "see the light" and vote Obama. They understand that McCain is, and would be, a warmonger, delusional, and flip-flops on his issues more than a goldfish out of water. And Palin...you've got to be kidding me. Do not waste my time on that JOKE of a V.P. candidate.

The polls are being kind to McCain/Palin by saying that they are slipping by double-digits. It's going to be a landslide. McCain/Palin voters need to get over, get on with their lives, and finally fess up to the fact that a much more educated, professional, diplomatic, intelligent, and DEMOCRATIC, candidate will be running this Nation...like it should be.

P.S. Have you seen one of these McCain rallies lately? I sure have. What did I see when our good old geriatric friend was taking questions? 2...count 'em, 2.... brainwashed McCain supporters, decided to open their mouths. Supporter 1, "I don't want my kid to grow up with a terrorist in office." Supporter 2, "uh, I, uh, um, Obama, um...ARAB." No joke folks.

Can you see Russia from your backyard, dawgonit?


Posted by: McSame/Failin' | October 15, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

JakeD,

You are, unsurprisingly, deying the undeniable.

That Pailn has the legal right to fire any or her staff for any reason is totally IRRELEVANT to this article.

The statement she made that is being question here was -

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

Contrary to this assertion, the report clearly states, in it's first finding that -

"For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is a law Jake. It's an Ethics law. She was found to have violated an ethics law. She subsequently claimed that she had been "cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity"

Please explain in your best Orwellian tones how that is not a LIE.

Posted by: Jerry | October 15, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

Definition- provided by New Webster
Republican: a species previously thought to be mythical and believed to inhabit the slime bogs of pre hominids.
Eats lies and vile slime for sustenance and regurgitates what it consumes on the nearest warm bodied creature.
Is believed to have an ill formed cerebellum and therefor lacks the ability to reason or form coherent speech.

Posted by: Thinkingmanspress | October 15, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Jerry:

I already did -- perhaps you didn't read my posts -- the SECOND FINDING stated she did nothing improper or unlawful.

P.S. to JakeD:

You have to do better than "I just hate black people." As I have stated on numerous threads, I would gladly have voted for a PRO-LIFE African American candidate, Ambassador Keyes, for instance.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

McSame/Failin':

Here's YOUR educated, professional, diplomatic, intelligent, and DEMOCRATIC, candidate (at the Saddleback Civil Forum):

Q. AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS, IN YOUR VIEW?

A. WELL, AH ... I THINK THAT ... WHETHER YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ... OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, UH ... ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, UH ... YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. BUT, BUT, BUT ... LET ME JUST SPEAK MORE GENERALLY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF ABORTION BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY THE COUNTRY WRESTLES WITH. ONE THING THAT I'M ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED OF IS UH ... THAT THERE IS A MORAL AND ETHICAL CONTENT TO THIS ISSUE. UH ... SO I THINK THAT ANYBODY WHO TRIES TO DENY THE MORAL DIFFICULTIES AND GRAVITY OF THE ABORTION ISSUE I THINK IS NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

No joke.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Alaska Voter:

At least Gov. Palin will be able to deliver her home State, unlike John Edwards in 2004 ; )

Back on topic, here's "Finding Number Two" again (keep in mind that "Finding Number One" indeed references an ethics law violation, but the following seems to be saying nothing improper or unlawful was done inthat regard -- kinda like the analogy "The sky is blue AND the sky is orange" at the same time -- while it may appear at first to be mutually exclusive to you, it is not. For instance, during a sunset, the sky IS orange but still blue above that. It's therefore not a "lie" to point to "Finding Number Two" in that reagrd):

"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, 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."

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

To remind everyone of the analogy (borrowed from aleks above):

If the Report had said:

Finding Number One: the sky is blue.

Finding Number Two: the sky is orange.

It would not be a "lie" to state: "the Report says the sky is orange."

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,
If you really want facts, then spend some time on www.factcheck.org.
They are nonpartisan and ding both the Dems and Republicans.

Posted by: phoenix55 | October 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

It says no such thing. Stop being such a jerk.

Finding two says...

"Gov. Palin's firing of Commissioner Moneghan was a proper and lawful excercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch deptartment heads"

Nowhere does that say "she did nothing improper or unlawful" as you claim. It verifies that she has the right to terminate employment for any reason, not that she did NOTHING unlawful or improper. It does not contradict finding one, which clearly states that her actions in the run up to this firing violated a state ETHICS LAW.

To put it more clearly for your GOP addled brain. She did not break the law by firing Moneghan, but she DID break the law and behaved improperly in the MANNER in which she fired him.

Understand now?

Posted by: Jerry | October 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

www.factcheck.org is NOT nonpartisan, just look at where their interns and staff come from:

Director, Brooks Jackson -- AP and CNN.

Deputy Director, Viveca Novak -- Time magazine. co-author of book slamming the Guantanamo Bay detention center

Director, Dr. Kathleen Jamieson -- democrat advocate/Bill Moyers cohort.

Editor, Lori Robertson -- American Journalism Review(defunct/1 editorial writer/lost advertisers/libel suite payments). Casey Journalism Center(NBC news/people mag/Washington post)

Joe Miller -- Mack/Crounse Group (democrat direct mail co.).

Emi Kolawole -- Prod asst PBS’s “NOW With Bill Moyers

Justin Bank -- worked for AFL-CIO and a boutique public relations firm

D’Angelo Gore -- Philadelphia Daily News(beat by a free daily paper) and Washington Informer (Black DC weekly 50k circulation)

Brigitte Tapp -- Minority Media and Telecomm Council demanding more media jobs for blacks.

Matthew Barge -- Gen. Wesley Clark campaign worker.

Jennifer Ernst -- worked for Rino Sen. Chuck Hagel

Stephen Simas -- Dep Field Director of Rino Sen. Lincoln Chafee’s 2006 re-election campaign/two years working in his Senate office.

Jordan Grossman -- PoliComm, forum for radicals writers

Nathan Hake -- student VP Univ of PA Democrats

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Jerry:

No, I am the only one here reading BOTH Findings in the most logical, non-contradictory way -- see "Sky is blue / orange" analogy -- I would argue that YOUR reading is mutually exclusive:

1) Gov. Palin's firing of Commissioner Moneghan was proper and lawful

vs.

2) Gov. Palin's MANNER in firing of Commissioner Moneghan was improper and unlawful.

Both conclusions cannot be true. Understand now?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

P.S. -- I am not being "a jerk" to point out that "Finding Two" indeed says Gov. Palin did nothing improper or unlawful in the firing of Commissioner Moneghan. Only "a jerk" would twist my words to claim I was saying she did "nothing wrong" ever in her life. I already said, above, that she should have reigned Todd in more, using perfect 20/20 hindsight of course. I also said I would have personally defended my sister with a firearm, but that's just me. Hopefully, long gone are the days of Vice Presidents who shoot people ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I could clarify further: "In spite of [any alleged ethical impropriety], Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority". Does that help any?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

JakeD,

What is wrong with you?

Of course both findings can be true.

Finding Two correctly states that Palin did nothing wrong in firing Moneghan because, legally, she doesn't have to give any reason.

Finding One correctly states that regardless and seperate from her rights to hire and fire state employees, she is also bound by Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a), which she violated.

The fact that she acted properly and legally in regard to her hiring and firing duties does NOT mean she acted properly in regard to Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a).

Your statement is like saying a man cleared of murder, but convicted of conspiracy to murder did nothing wrong. Idiotic.

The ethics violation was about Palin's actions leading up to the firing, not the firing itself.

You are just the most obtuse DB I've ever come across.

Posted by: Jerry | October 15, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

"Only "a jerk" would twist my words to claim I was saying she did "nothing wrong" ever in her life."

Please point out when I said this.

Posted by: Jerry | October 15, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Fine, Jerry, you think the following conclusions are true:

1) Gov. Palin's firing of Commissioner Moneghan was proper and lawful

2) Gov. Palin's MANNER in firing of Commissioner Moneghan was improper and unlawful.

I was trained in logic, so we'll have to agree to disagree on your opinion.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Your posts above, including most recently, "Your statement is like saying a man cleared of murder, but convicted of conspiracy to murder did nothing wrong."

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

NO, I believe that...

1) Gov. Palin's firing of Commissioner Moneghan was proper and lawful

2) Gov. Palin's actions prior to the firing of Commissioner Moneghan were improper and unlawful.

You might want to take a refresher course in logic.

Posted by: Jerry | October 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The firing ITSELF cannot, by definition, be proper and lawful if she improperly violated the law in her actions leading up to the firing. Get it?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

May I suggest a remedial course for you?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Oh, Good God.

I never in a million years thought that that could be interpretted as "ever in her life". Jesus.

Alright, I'll clarify you muppet.

Your statement is like saying a man cleared of murder, but convicted of conspiracy to murder IN THE SAME CASE, did nothing wrong.

Posted by: Jerry | October 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Keep 'em coming, Jerry. I don't have another tee time until Friday.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Careful taking the Lord's name in vain though ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"The firing ITSELF cannot, by definition, be proper and lawful if she improperly violated the law in her actions leading up to the firing."

Yes it can.

She can fire anyone for any reason. She CANNOT use her position to influence people to act to her personal benefit. Which is what she did.

No unethical behavior makes the firing illegal, but the unethical behavior itself is still illegal and improper.

If you can't follow that, then God help you.

Posted by: Jerry. | October 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Let's see if I can get this through your thick skull...

Firing Moneghan - legal and proper.

Trying to force Moneghan to fire Wooten - Unethical and illegal.

Got it?

Posted by: Jerry | October 15, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

So, you actually think the FIRING would be legal even if the sole reason for the firing was Monegan refused to terminate Wooten? How about this one, would the firing be legal if the sole reason for the firing was Monegan being African American?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I personally don't agree that the firing was legal or ethical, I'm only stating what the report said and trying to get it into your brain that the two conclusions are not mutually exclusive.

This whole article is about the truthfulness of Palin's statement at the top of the page in which she claims that the report cleared her "of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity".

That is a blatant and undeniable falsehood.

Whether you agree with the findings or not, whether you think the findings are contradictory or not, the report clearly states that Palin violated a state ethics law.

To claim the opposite is Orwellian.

Posted by: Jerry | October 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

The Report DID clear her "of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity". As I have shown, above, any other reading of the Report creates mutually exclusive propositions.

To be clear, I am not saying the Report reached mutually exclusive conclusions -- I am trying to point out how both "Findings" are true -- YOUR READING of the Report (as set forth above) reaches mutually exclusive conclusions.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Whether you think it's "blatant" or not, it is not an "undeniable" falsehood, as I am in fact denying it. Kinda like using "obviously" in an argument.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Dear Jerry, I would assume its safe to say that you are voting for Obama since Gov. Palin is guilty in your eyes. Who cares about that whole ordeal because it happens all the time in the work force, it's just not in the spotlight. If you think Obama hasn't broken a few rules then you are just plain stupid, every politician has used there status to munipulate other peoples lives, it's what they do. There is absolutley no way I will be supporting Obama, it would be a disgrace to our country.

Posted by: James | October 15, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Jerry:

Perhaps once you can reconcile these two statements you made in your own mind, then we can discuss it more intelligently:

A) "I believe that ... Gov. Palin's firing of Commissioner Moneghan was proper and lawful ..." (1:15 PM)

B) "I personally don't agree that the firing was legal or ethical ..." (1:43 PM)

Sounds more like you are having an argument with yourself.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

HELLO TROLLS!!! PLEASE DO THE WORLD A FAVOR AND STEP OUT OF YOUR FAUX NEWS CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD AND READ THE REPORT. SHE VIOLATED ETHICS LAWS BY USING HER HUSBAND AS HER OWN PERSONAL BROWN SHIRT....YOU KNOW YOU PEOPLES JUDGMENT IS TERRIBLE...FIRST YOU GAVE US BUSH AND YOU THINK THAT WE ARE GOING TO LET YOU HAVE PALIN???

Posted by: TROLL HUNTER | October 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

As stated, above, I have read the Report in full. Also, you are not "GOING TO LET US HAVE PALIN". Just as with George Bush, if that's God Will, there's nothing YOU can do about it.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

God's will? Since when did our democracy become a theocracy??? Maybe you havent noticed since you apparently cannot read that people VOTE in American elections NOT GOD.

Posted by: Becky | October 15, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I didn't say "theocracy", did I? Whether you want to admit it or not, however "Every person must be subject to the governing authorities, for no authority exists except by God's permission. The existing authorities have been established by God". (Romans 13:1)

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Yes, well Romans may say that, but the US Constitution does not. We have freedom of and from religion. Therefore, God has no legal right to fix elections.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Here in America, God "establishes" said authorities through people's votes (although we are not a direct democracy ; )

There's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush being President is God's Will.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

God doesn't need a "legal right".

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Funny. There's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush being President was the Devil's Will.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

And, by the way, if God "establishes" said authorities through people's votes, then God "established" Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. NEXT CANARD.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

JakeD:
'The Report DID clear her "of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity"'

Wrong. The key word is "any". And that's just false. The report found that she "violat[ed] Section 39.52.119(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act". (As I noted before, our host implicitly has this point wrong too when he claimed that 'Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of "legal wrongdoing"'.)

Posted by: Crust | October 15, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Of course, God "established" Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. I never argued otherwise. As for the "Devil's will" the Book of Job addresses that type of scenario. All things (even evil) work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28)

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Crust:

See my "Sky is blue / orange" analogy, as well as discussion with Jerry, above.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Becky:

Are you posting now as "Anonymous"?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

OK, so God established Clinton, but why? After all, "How can President Clinton show his face to the great people of America? How can he look them in the eye? How can the people of America ever trust him again? How can he face his family, his friends and his supporters? How can he smile and pretend that he has not told so many, many, many lies to the American people? He should consider stepping down as President of the United States." But, God put him there, so I guess he can stay.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

I guess I'm wasting my time here. After all, God is going to vote for me. I, apparently, have no free will. Therefore, I have no obligation to get a job, take care of my kids, be civil to my neighbors, or attempt to be civil to anyone. God will take care of that for me.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else (with enough courage to at least pick a fake name)?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, God will "establish" a good democrat who will give me welfare and food stamps. Oh, and free healthcare. But, I hope that God also "establishes" good supreme court justices who further erode my freedoms in the name of security. After all, I wouldn't want to have to worry about danger, and my rights aren't that important.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

But, most of all, I hope that I don't have to learn to grow up, to navigate all of the lies and false logic that my fellow citizens, the media, and my elected officials constantly spew at me. If they can use the latest in psychology to manipulate my feelings in order to secure my vote, then I guess it's ok. After all, God "established" it.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Anyone?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, your blue/orange sky metaphor doesn't work. The report found that she violated the law. True, it also found that one of her specific actions (firing Monegan as opposed to pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten) was legally permissible. But so what? She claimed that she was cleared of "ANY legal wrongdoing". That is false. If she wanted to make a narrower statement that she was cleared of legal wrongdoing in firing Monegan, that would be OK. But that's not what she said and continues to say.

Posted by: Crust | October 15, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Now that I have faith in God's choices, I can get back to getting that DOW JONES back up by allowing my basest wants and desires fuel the economy. I'll buy everything I want and watch the stupidest television, spectacularly devoid of content, and let my brain rot. I'll let them all tell me that there are only two sides to every argument, and that you're either "for us, or against us!!!" I'll make sure to never see the nuances in any argument, and I'll (rightfully) assume that anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot. Now that I don't have to look at the person anymore, it's so much easier!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Crust:

How did she violate a "law" then, if it was not related to the firing of Monegan?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Exactly. Argue your case with Mr. Dobbs, then, because he's the one who conceded that Gov. Palin has reasonable grounds to argue she was cleared of legal wrongdoing (he just doesn't -- or can't -- admit that she was cleared of violating the ethics law too). I think I've said my piece on the issue. If someone (who has read the full Report) wants to point out something specific you think I missed, with page reference, please do so.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

I guess JakeD doesn't get many billable hours these days, since he apparently spends all his time spewing nonsense.

The report, whether you agree with it or not, clearly says Palin abused her power and violated ethics laws. This is indisputable. For her to claim that the report says exactly the opposite is scary; that mindless bodies out there accept her backwards version of reality is horrifyingly so.

Executive experience? She had to hire a city manager when she got elected as Mayor because she didn't actually know how to do her job. She was more interested in getting a new hockey rink built for her kids.

To me, Palin is harmless. The real problem is the 40% of America that views education with contempt, ignores reality, and supports the Self-Branded Mavericks.


Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, my name it Pete. It's my real name. And I'm tired of you. I thought we could have a conversation, but you are obdurate. I don't know why some people think that never admitting fault is a strength. It's actually a sign of weakness.

Your line of reasoning is circular, your conterarguments ignore the main points to focus on minor inconsistencies. Your answers are disingenuous. You are a bigot - nobody highlights HUSSEIN and says "I like trivia" and actually sounds credible.

But most of all, as a Christian, I despise your use of god and religion to further your agenda. Jesus taught us to love people, not hate them. That's the message. That's the main point. Don't you get it?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Patrick:

I'm retired -- I also enjoying golfing and sailing -- "billable hours" are just a distant memory : )

Pete:

I don't "hate" anyone, even Barack HUSSEIN Obama. For the record, it's not "hate", but I simply won't argue with "Anonymous" posts -- they are legion, or they could be just one person -- it's too confusing and not worth my time. I don't argue with fake JakeD(s) for much the same reason.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

As I've said, before, it's my job to take a skeptical view of the candidate's character, to look for holes in the evidence, to argue that any miracles attributed to the candidate were fraudulent, etc. No one should take it personally, really ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - that's a lame comeback. And everyone has hate, so don't lie to me. It's our battle to overcome it that makes us strong. It's when we give in to it, which is EASY ("I would have personally defended my sister with a firearm. And, I am indeed suggesting that would have been ok."), that makes us weak.

And I don't believe in any way that God "establishes" authorities, because we have to define ourselves by making choices in life. WE have the option of making good and bad decisions. How can we possibly save ourselves if God does it for us? What do we learn?

Posted by: Pete | October 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

The sky color metaphor doesn't apply. The report is closer to, "the sky is blue; the dirt is brown." To then claim that the report said "everything is brown! and yes, I mean the sky too!" is ridiculous.

Apparently it's God's will for JakeD to plague the Post message boards and fill them with vapid rants. But seriously, here's a news flash for ya: God, if he or she exists, doesn't give a damn about who is elected President.


Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

And the devil's advocate argument is lame, because you are only adovcating your side. And the don't take it personally argument is lame when you have, on several occasions, directed insults at people.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and the not arguing with Anonymous posts is lame. Is the argument somehow invalid when there's no name attached to it? Are you going to attack me instead of the argument?

The argument stands on its own regardless of who makes it.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 15, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

JakeD thinks it's his job to "take a skeptical view of the candidate's character." I think his placement of the apostrophe is purposeful. He's only skeptical of one candidate: Sen. Obama. For God's Chosen Mavericks, blind faith is all that's required.

Palin may have a bit of executive experience, but she's proven herself a lousy executive. She fires experienced managers and bureaucrats and replaces them with her high school friends. At least when Bush fires good people, he replaces them with industry hacks smart enough to undermine all regulation. Sarah just appoints her former basketball teammates, and hires a city manager to do her job.

If Todd Palin really thought Wooten was a threat, he should have used proper legal channels to remedy the issue. If a cop thinks someone is a threat, he can't just intimidate or arrest the person. If Bush thinks someone is a threat, he can't just wiretap their phone and throw them in Guantanamo. We have laws. Having a governor as a wife doesn't give you a pass to subvert them.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Pete, I was just reading the Book of Job. God allowed the Devil to afflict Job so that we would have one day have an example to look up to. So, to answer your question, there are many reasons why God allowed Clinton to be elected -- I don't presume to know the specific reason -- but, God allows suffering / evil throughout the land. I believe that Clinton was a warning call for America to wake up!

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised to see all these FReepers sullying their hands with the WaPo. I'd take you a whole lot more seriously if you could spell correctly ("approvel"?), understood that violating a statute is in fact breaking the law, didn't SHOUT or lie or bully or hate.

All in a day's work for today's GOP.

You must be so proud.

-AF

Posted by: Anacher Forester | October 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Clinton woke up only one half of the population. Bush woke up the other.

Posted by: Pete | October 15, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I was not going to attack you. I just wanted to know if I was addressing you or Becky. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. As for the Devil's Advocate against McCain or Palin, go get your own ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Anacher Forester:

Do you consider me a "FReeper"?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Typical hand-waving from JakeD about why Bush being elected is "God's will," but God merely "allowed" Clinton to be elected (maybe as a "warning call"? yeah, right). Anything good that happens is God smiling down upon us. Anything bad that happens is God working his mysterious ways, which mere mortals shouldn't deign to understand.

It's like every natural disaster -- the families of the survivors thank God, and the families of the victims ask, "why, God?" -- and then assume it's God's will.

Well wake up: God didn't have a hand in electing George Washington, George Bush, or anyone in between. And Obama's victory won't be because of God either. It'll be because a democracy -- even one filled with as much hate and ignorance as ours -- can generally be counted on to do the right thing.

It's really a shame -- tens of thousands have been killed in Iraq, millions rot in our prisons, millions more go broke due to poor health insurance (if they get health care at all), and yet because a three-month-old fetus has a beating heart, millions of Americans will vote for McCain and Palin. Still, I'm very encouraged by the growing trend of younger religious voters to value of the lives of the born as much as the unborn.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I value the innocent lives of the born just as much as the unborn.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Anacher Forester:

Do you believe one requirement to be considered a "FReeper" is to actually post on FreeRepublic.com?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

What do you think about getting back to the point of this article?

JakeD: "the SECOND FINDING stated she did nothing improper or unlawful."

Guess what? The FIRST finding says she abused her power and violated ethics laws, by knowingly allowing her husband and other surrogates to pressure Monegan.

One would think that JakeD, as a retired attorney, would understand that when someone is tried on multiple counts, they can be convicted of some and acquitted of others. And even on a single count, one can be convicted of a lesser crime.

The report states that in firing Monegan, Palin broke no law. We agree on that. But in "knowingly allowing" her surrogates to apply pressure on him for her own personal reasons, she violated Alaska's ethics laws. The report is clear on that. Your argument is nonsense. Palin is entitled to say she disagrees with the report's conclusions, but she should not be allowed to blatantly misrepresent those conclusions and claim total vindication.


Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

LOL, Patrick, which one is it then:

1) In firing Monegan, Palin broke no law.

2) In firing Monegan (by "knowingly allowing" her surrogates to apply pressure on him for her own personal reasons), she violated Alaska's Executive Ethic law.

It can't be both.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps you simply don't (or won't) understand what "she did nothing improper or unlawful" means?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Your statement (1) is correct. Your claim (2) is a misstatement of what I've said, and illogical to boot.

You can't fire someone by allowing surrogates to pressure someone. That makes no sense at all. The firing was technically legal, according to the report. "Knowingly allowing her surrogates to apply pressure on him" is a related but distinct action on Palin's part. It is this action which was unlawful, according to the report. I'll stress that last part -- ACCORDING TO THE REPORT. Palin has proven herself a shameless liar, because she doesn't just say, "I disagree with the report's findings," she claims the report says the opposite of what it really does, and hopes no one will notice.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

I don't disagree with the Report's findings -- the Report, as a whole, cleared her of any improper or unlawful activity realted to firing of Monegan, whether that was not reigning in Todd better or handing Monegan his actual walking papers. I am simply pointing out that it is the same as saying "The sky is blue" and "The sky is orange." At first blush (another color), that sounds mutually exclusive, but it's not.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

realted = related

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

You're wrong. The report says she violated the law. It says that by willingly allowing her husband and others to pressure Monegan for personal reasons, she violated ethics laws. While the firing itself was found to be legal, the other actions, which were certainly related to the firing, were not. Do you need me to quote the report?

As I pointed out earlier, your metaphor is inapt. The report says: "the sky is blue; the grass is green." Palin says: "The report says everything is green! And just to be clear, I mean the sky, too!" This is a flat-out lie.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Patrick:

I've read the Findings and the full Report -- my opinion is that the Report cleared her -- we'll just have to agree to disagree then.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

From pages 65-66 of the report:

"The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least, engaged in "official action" by her inaction if not her active participation or assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [and there is evidence of her active participation]. She knowingly, as that term is defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office and the resources of the Governor's office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired. Her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act."

Can you please explain to me how the conclusion that "[h]er conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act" clears her of any improper or unlawful activity, as you say it does?

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 7:23 PM | Report abuse

You say you read the report. Did you read the part I quoted above?

I don't agree to disagree. In this case, I believe I'm right, and I don't think this is a matter of opinion.

The report says she violated the law, and goes into some detail about how it came to that conclusion. You and Governor Palin are entitled to disagree with the conclusions, but in doing so, you should address the arguments in the report, not shamelessly deny that they exist.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Sure, that's an easy one (quoting Finding Number Two):

"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety [that's what you are pointing out, Patrick, now read the very next sentence very closely]. In spite of that, 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."

If she BROKE THE LAW, however, how could it possibly be "proper and lawful" firing?! The only way you can read the FULL Report, that's not mutually exclusive, is that she didn't break the law. You are the one who keeps saying a) she broke the law AND b) she didn;t break the law.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Let's back up and get YOUR definition of "In spite of that"?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Are you incapable of understanding this? There were multiple findings, and they're not mutually exclusive.

If I say, "the sky is blue; the grass is green," I'm not saying that everything is green!

Yes, her firing of Monegan was proper and lawful. But, her knowingly allowing her subordinates to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten was not! While the report says this may have been a contributing factor in her firing of Monegan, the firing itself isn't relevant to the finding that she violated the Ethics Act.

Why is this so hard to understand? As the report states it, her violation of the Ethics Act was independent of the firing of Monegan. If Monegan were never fired, she still would have broken the law, by "knowingly permitt[ing] a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda" (quoting the report).

Please, there's no need to tell me what I am and am not saying. Maybe I can help you out by reapplying your clumsy metaphor to this situation:

(a) the sky is blue [during the day] = she broke the law [when she continued over a long period of time to pressure her subordinates to get Wooten fired].

(b) the sky is orange [at sunset] = she didn't break the law [when she fired Monegan].

Does that help you understand? Both statements are true, in different contexts. Palin, on the other hand, says, "the report concluded that the sky is orange all the time! Yes, even during the day!" Of course, the report says just the opposite.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Re "in spite of that," again, it's irrelevant to the first finding. The phrase "in spite of that" here refers to the fact that the firing of Monegan was legal, regardless of whether it was for personal reasons.

However, the pressuring of subordinates to carry out a personal agenda was found to be not legal.

They're separate actions, and are thus judged separately.

It's as if you were convicted of drug possession, and then later acquitted of stealing a car, and the police report says something like, "in spite of his drug habit, JakeD did not break the law in taking his wife's car for a spin." The drug conviction still stands.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

No, it wasn't my (clumsy) metaphor in the first place. But, to use what you just posted on it, all Gov. Palin is saying is "I'm very, very pleased that the sky is orange."

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

The Report, as a whole, clears her of any legal or ethical wrongdoing as to the firing -- that was the scope of the inquiry, not drug charges or grand theft auto -- in addition, the "pressuring of subordinates to carry out a personal agenda" was simply an OPINION, not a legal conviction or even accusation. Taken out of context, we can nitpick that to death. Did you see the Palin family attorney's reply I linked to, above?

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: all Gov. Palin is saying is "I'm very, very pleased that the sky is orange."

No, no, no. Palin is saying "I'm very, very pleased that the report says that the sky is orange all the time, even during the day."

Of course, the report says no such thing.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

I forgot "the Report says" part (thank you for the correction). That is exactly what she is saying. I dispute your premise that she is saying "all the time, even during the day."

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

The finding that the campaign of pressure on subordinates constituted a violation of Alaska's ethics law is an much an "opinion" as the finding that the firing of Monegan was lawful. Those were the principal findings of the report.

Palin's attorney's reply is much more honest that Governor Palin herself. Her attorney at least acknowledges that the report found she violated the ethics law. On the other hand, Gov. Palin herself has repeatedly claimed not just that the report is erroneous or biased, but that the report says just the opposite of what it actually does say. Therefore, she is a liar. Whether or not a non-financial gain can be sufficient to constitute an ethics violation (as the attorney's reponse argues it isn't) isn't even relevant to this discussion.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

JakeD: I dispute your premise that she is saying "all the time, even during the day."

Palin: "I'm very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

By saying she's been cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity," it sure sounds like she's saying the report found no abuse of power or ethics violations whatsoever. Can you honestly claim otherwise?

Do you at least acknowledge that the report says she violated the Ethics Act and abused power? If so, you're more honest than Sarah Palin.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Palin is not lying about that. Out of context, the Report does use the words "violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act" and "abuse of power". IN SPITE OF THAT ... (you know the rest).

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Out of context? Come on, you're not being honest. We've already covered the "in spite of that" nonsense. Can you explain what specifically being taken out of context? The first two findings are independent. The report does in fact say she violated the ethics act... and then many pages later, says the firing of Monegan was lawful. That doesn't sound like the same "context."

Even Palin's own attorneys acknowledge that the report finds she violated the Ethics Act. Of course, they argue (forcefully) that the finding was incorrect. But Palin doesn't even acknowledge the conclusions of the report; moreover, she affirms the opposite of those conclusions!

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Her attorneys have a much different purpose (getting read for the Labor Board inquiry). I pointed you there if you want to nitpick the legal conclusions to death. My purpose is to take the Report at face value. The "context" I got from reading the full Report was that the ethics "violation" was much ado about nothing, since it was a "proper and lawful" firing -- now, I understand you think that's the whole focus of the Report and you want to discount the rest -- I simply disagree.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

But Palin didn't say, "I'm happy the investigation found the firing of Monegan was completely legal. I strongly disagree with their conclusion that I violated the Ethics Act." She said she'd been "cleared of any hint of any kind of unethical activity."

That statement is the focus of this article. That statement is an outright lie. You and Gov. Palin may feel the ethics violation was much ado about nothing, but you can't just say with a straight face that the report cleared her of all unethical activity. It specifically did not do that; it found she abused her power and violated the Ethics Act. You may think that's not a big deal. Frankly, compared with her gross underqualification for the Vice Presidency, it isn't. But there's no doubt that in discussing the conclusions of the report, Palin has repeatedly lied.

I don't discount the other findings of the report. I accept that firing Monegan was lawful. Will you accept that she violated ethics laws (even if you think it's small potatoes)?

It's been a pleasure. I'm off to listen to the debate. Why don't you just admit that whatever else we each think about Sarah Palin, we can agree that in this case, she lied.

Now I'll let you get back to smearing Obama and annoying other readers. Lighten up people, no once really cares about JakeD's juvenile "HUSSEIN" thing! And if we're electing a President based at all on his or her name, well, we're totally f***ed.

Posted by: patrick | October 15, 2008 8:55 PM | Report abuse

No, we (obviously) can't agree that she "lied". I'm multi-tasking and watching the debate too.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - I understand how hard this must be for you, as I have experienced severe lacking in the "ethics" portion of conservatives' brains.

Just because it is legal does not mean it is remotely ethical.

It is legal to have an extramarital affair. Does that make it okay? No!

It's an ethics breach. One of the main purposes of the Report was to tell if the action in question was ethical. Try to get it into your head - it doesn't matter if it was legal; the ethical aspect was what was in question. An ethics breach of this sort is not, as you say, "much ado about nothing."

Posted by: pk | October 15, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Okay, I admit it. She was deceptive. But if we don't overlook Palin's faults, we're going to elect a black president.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 9:15 PM | Report abuse

pk:

The Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is a LAW.

Posted by: JakeD | October 15, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Nice try fake JakeD. I(the REAL JakeD) would never admit Palin broke the law by calling the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics act a law.

Its pretty clear to me that Palin behaved UNETHICALLY but not ILLEGALY. It is completely within her powers to be as unethical as she wants. I commend her for it!

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 12:13 AM | Report abuse

Palin can say whatever she wants, just as long as that brown porch-monkey doesn't get his chance to swear himself in ON THE KORAN!

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

The kooks sure are out tonight. Keep it up though. I get paid for every post, whether I post it or the fake JakeD(s) does.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:19 AM | Report abuse

JakeD - You get paid for posting? From whom?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

JakeD - I would assume a retired lawyer wouldn't need to be paid by the post. How old are you? Hasn't social security kicked in?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse

JakeD - I'd say that based on how well you type (and how fast) and your use of emoticons, that you are in the 20 - 30 year range.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Anyone else (with the courage to at least pick a fake name)?

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Jake - what's your real age? And who funds your posts?

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Hi, Pete. I am 76 years YOUNG -- and, I've been typing myself since before the IBM electronic typewriter was invented -- I also did that kind of work during the Korean War. Hard as it may be to believe, emoticons and "LOL" aren't that hard for an old dog to learn.

Also, my Social Security kicked in at 70. I don't get earthly pay to post here though (I'm storing up treasures in Heaven ; )

"Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in Heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12)

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

So, you were 16 when you voted for Truman/Dewey? I'm not aware of any states that allowed registered voters to be 16 in 1948. And the 26th amendment was passed in 1971, but it only changed the voting age from 21 to 18, not 16.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

I said I voted in every election SINCE Truman. Learn to read.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Georgia actually lowered its voting age to 18 in 1946. By the time Oregon v. Mitchell was decided, Kentucky had lowered its voting age to 18, it was 19 in Alaska and 20 in Hawaii. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"Since" is inclusive. If I've been voting since 1948, it doesn't mean 1949 and foward. Again, disingenuous.

So, you voted for Eisenhower when you were 20?

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

Maybe you want to finally explain how you know that every American voter knows Obama's middle name (especially when some of his own supporters can't even tell us how many U.S. Senators there are) or -- my favorite -- how using his full name is a religious "smear" (given that I would gladly vote for a pro-life Muslim even if his middle name were HUSSEIN). Or, if you want to move on to a new canard, that would be fine too.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Georgia had lowered its voting age to 18, and was the ONLY state in 1948 to have a voting age lower than the federal age of 21. And, you were still 16, so it's irrelevant what Georgia was doing. And, I didn't say there weren't any states that had a voting age of 18. I said I was't aware of any states that had a voting age of 16.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - your HUSSEIN reference is still indefensible, no matter how much you try to spin it. And my questions about your age simply point to the fact that you were lying about voting since Truman.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Our posts crossed in cyberspace -- I never said "including Truman" (although I followed that election intently) or misrepresented that fact -- yes, I voted for Ike.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Indefensible, or not, YOU have never substantited your claim that every American voter already knows Obama's middle name.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Your post:

kalexander1:

Good point. Probably best thing for her to do is just pay the fine, admitting no guilt of course, and get back to the campaign. This is probably the most important election of our lifetimes (and I've voted in every one since Truman ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 5:16 PM

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone, other than Pete, watch The Colbert Report last night? Don't tell Pete about Stephen taking The One's middle name in vain.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - I said "Every one already knows his middle name." You got me. I can't prove everyone already knows his middle name. Nice diversion. Now you prove that you're not a bigot by pointing out his middle name in the first place.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

That's right, Pete, every election SINCE Truman (not including Truman -- meaning AFTER Truman, specifically Dwight D. Eisenhower, and not the Dwight D. Eisenhower living in Alabama, the Dwight D. Eisenhower who served as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during WWII -- THAT Dwight D. Eisenhower and every Presidential election thereafter ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - you may not realize it, but the Colbert Repost is satire. Stephen is pretending to be a Bill O'Reilly character. He uses satire to make fun of the right.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

Are you calling Stephen T. Colbert a BIGOT?

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of it being satire or not, he used The One's sacred, never-to-be-uttered, MIDDLE NAME, so (according to your logic) he must be a BIGOT!!!

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

P.S. -- he used satire to make fun of the left as well ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

O.K., Pete let me try to get this straight, satire is an acceptable use of The One's given name -- what about using it on his official birth certificate, was that sacrilege or not -- I know that using it for trivia purposes or honestly trying to educate someone who may not know it (you finally admitted such ignorant people DO exist), is strictly off limits. Do I have that right so far?

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - actually, I do not say that satire is an acceptable use of Obama's middle name, because it still has the potential (for some people) to reinforce the myth that he's an Islamic extremist. I don't like that Colbert jokes that Obama is a secret Muslim. I think that it continues the conversation, which you are proving.

And no, according to my logic, Colbert using Obama's middle name does not make Colbert a bigot, because I assume he's using it satirically. Whereas, you did not.

As far as acceptable use, I make no claim to what you can or can't say. I can make the distinction in how you say it and what it implies.

Finally, I was never asked to admit if ignorant people exist or not, so again, another digression from you. Of course ignorant people exist. I'm trying to provide you a mirror.

Oh, and you still haven't proved that you're not a bigot, you just turned it back on me and Colbert.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

JakeD - It's been fun sparring, but I really have to get back to work. I'll check in later.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

If you vote for Obama you'll be bringing about the end of days! Fire and brimstone will fall from the sky and our brown president will show his true true horns.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Nice try, fake JakeD.

P.S. to Pete -- if Colbert's not a "bigot" than neither am I -- see you around.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Pete:

You were, indeed, asked to admit if people ignorant of Obama's middle name existed or not, so again, NOT another "digression" from me. It's central to my main defense strategy. Here's that question again:

"You are sure that 'everyone' of the six billion people on earth know Obama's middle name?"

Posted by: JakeD | October 13, 2008 2:10 PM

Now you see why I want you to post as something other than "Anonymous" -- besides giving a personal touch so lacking here on-line -- there's no other way to keep track of all the ignorant people out there.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

JakeD, why don't you just admit that you are a Klansman and a RACIST, that you would rather be poor, without healthcare and without the mental health you so desperately need, why don't you go and lynch someone rather than vote. And, if you do lynch someone, I know I can't count on you to stay home and not vote because that's how slimey republicans are, they want their cake, they not only want to eat it, but they'll offer you a slice at costs, then eat 95% of it, people like you make me sad to be an American.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 16, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Because I am not a Klansman nor a RACIST, I would rather not be poor, without healthcare and without the mental health care you so desperately think I need. Rather than "go and lynch someone" I would have gladly voted for a PRO-LIFE African American. I'm sure how many "racists" would do that.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Was that you, again, Pete?

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

There is an ongoing investigation on palin's abuse of power. Added complaints have been included which are her hiring practices and the association representing the alaskan troopers have filed a complaint of breech of confidential records. An investigation by another party is ongoing to find out if the palin's home was built for free in connection to the wasilla arena contracts. smells like corruption to me. here are links.
http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/555288.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-10-08/news/the-book-of-sarah/1

Posted by: jsoelkers | October 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

jsoelkers:

What's the chance those get completed and announced before November 4th? About 1%. You had your shot with the Monegan firing, and came up short.

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

No, JakeD, I wouldn't make such sweeping generalizations about republicans, or democrats for that matter. By reducing you to a category ("republican," in this case), Anonymous thinks he/she can apply all of the faults and/or beliefs of individual republicans/conservatives to the entire set of people who identify with the republican party. It's the same thing as saying all black people are lazy - we know it's not true. Only, in this case, the bigotry is by political leaning, instead of skin color.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I also submit that this kind of political bigotry is why the country is so divided, and it's why people can't have reasonable political discussions. Because, once you reduce someone from a living, feeling person to a simplified generalization, you are no longer obligated to treat the person with any respect. I'm not suggesting that anyone here is Hitler, but always remember that this is what Hitler did to the Jews.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Well, that's one "point" in your favor then ; )

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I also submit that our media and our politicians are complicit, and that the current administration (questioning our patriotism?, my god) and several conservative talk show hosts (can Michael Savage possibly be more hateful?) have actively and purposefully stoked this divide. I also blame the Republican revolution of Newt Gingrich and company for going on a Clinton witch hunt throughout the 90s. Much of the hate against the Clintons stems from them, not from the electorate. Sure, Bill Clinton was a scumbag for cheating on his wife and lying about it, but it doesn't justify the non-stop effort by the house republicans to investigate every perceived wrong-doing. It created a mistrust of democrats that led the nation to think George Bush was actually a good idea. And just so you know, I think Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and others are just as guilty on the left.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

In fact, I think David Frum was quite correct when he went on the Rachel Maddow show and decried the "ugliness of tone" in politics, and that the show was an example of it. He's right.

However, just because I agree with Frum on that point, doesn't mean I agree with everything he does. And neither should we: 1. vilify every person who doesn't belong to our party; 2. deify everyone who does. Reagan was not a god; Clinton was not a demon; and vice-versa.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Also, remember it's our politicians who set the tone and hire the advertisers, marketers, researchers, and psychologists to test which phrases will elicit the most positive responses in the candidate's favor and most negative responses for the opponent. If you think "estate taxes" are ok, then we must change the name to "death tax". Surely, no one wants to be taxed after dying. It's a subversive lie, and both sides do it.

And the public eats it up exactly like they're supposed to. It's drivel devoid of content for a mass market that's been convinced of the good of never-ending consumption, personal greed, and wink-wink-we-all-get-the-joke sarcasm and apathy.

What saddens me most is how snowed everyone really is. Do you actually think your candidate is being honest? Do you really think John McCain was guilty of the savings and loans failures? (he was found to have made "bad judgment", but was originally slated to be dropped from the whole investigation; he was only kept because he was the only republican involved). Do you really think that Barack Obama hangs out with Bill Ayers? (first of all, do you really think he's that stupid?; second of all, his association is tangential)? Do you really think Bill Clinton controlled the economy in the 90s? There was a republican congress for most of that period, you know? Maybe Democrats and Republicans did it together. Maybe it's the balance of power that helped.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Maybe, just maybe, we can agree that the problem is the extremists on both sides.

Posted by: Pete | October 16, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Didn't you just generalize about all "extremists"? Unfortunately, "extremists" are the only ones fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade. BTW: weren't American abolitionists "extremists" before 1860?

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Well I am amazed that people can be so blind that they completely overlook the fact that Palin was blatently lying. Yes Obama on some occassions did not tell the complete truth but nowhere near the false statements that McCain and Palin have made.

For all the McCain supporters, 8 years ago the world was amazed that the USA voted for Bush. 4 years ago it became a joke. If McCain with Palin as running mate gets to be the new president I can tell you no one will take you seriously anymore.

Can someone please tell me what is wrong with a healthcare system as it is in England or Canada? Both countries where the need for an operation is not made in the offices of insurance companies but by the elite doctor. Both countries where you do not need prior approval and both countries where you do not get billed for the operations you medically need.

We (in the Netherlands) have a healthcare system which is privatised but where everybody get the same healthcare. We pay around one hunderd dollars per month for that, people on wealthcare (who recieve around 950 to 1350 dollars per month)get a tax rebate of about 50% on that price.

For that we do not have to pay anything else when we are hospitalised and get almost free medication after treatment.

I can't imagine that people could be opposed to such a deal. And yes I pay taxes and yes around 30% of my gross monthly income. But for that I get those perks and almost free acces to schools, colleges and universities, good infrastructure and a society who thinks for itself and can express itself freely and keeps a critical view to it's own government.

Posted by: jasper | October 16, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

jasper:

Gov. Palin was "blatently lying" about the Report's Finding that "although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, 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"? Have you even read the Report, or you just wanted to post healthcare propaganda completely unrelated to this thread?

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Do you people in the Netherlands -- or Canada over on the Final Presidential Debate thread -- ever see us interfering (on-line or in person) with your internal elections?

Seriously, how many illegal contributions were there to Obama's campaign from that Gaza refugee camp? How many were from terrorists?

Posted by: JakeD | October 16, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

To all Palin excuse-makers on this thread, please educate yourselves. Palin was accused of two separate charges of misconduct:

1. Wrongful firing of Walt Monegan
2. Wrongfully pressuring subordinates to fire Mike Wooten prior to the firing of Walt Monegan

Yes, she had the right to fire Monegan, and the report stated as much. But she did not have the right to apply the other pressure that she did to Monegan and others, and those actions constituted a flagrant abuse of power.

This was not an acquittal by any means. Sarah Palin abused her power. Period.

Posted by: Sara | October 17, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

IT'S OFFICIAL! The WaPo pals around with terrorists and has been IN THE TANK for Barack HUSSEIN Obama since the get go. You don't have to pretend anymore, Dobbs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436_pf.html

In other "news" Gallup yesterday, and now AP/Yahoo poll today, have McCain within TWO POINTS.

Posted by: JakeD | October 17, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Will there EVER be a hard-hitting Fact Checker on Obama or Biden?
Posted by: JakeD

Uh yes oh blind one! There are many, many of those fact checker providers that seem elusive to you . . like CNN page and then dozens of other MSM news providers. They usually present a factoid that won't please your sensibilities.

One does have to actually READ instead of depend upon talk radio bigots who only proffer their intellectual constipation for the rapt rubes.

Posted by: Jeff | October 17, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

It's no wonder that there are still "undecideds" in this election. How long will it take to get through this 263-page report? Thank goodness I have office staff to make coffee runs for me.

Posted by: Mr. Small Biz Guy | October 17, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Jeff:

I'm not talking about other outlets. I've been asking DOBBS (you know, here at the WaPo, that just today ENDORSED Obama) that same question for a while now. Although, I do stop short of calling him a "talk radio bigot" : )

Posted by: JakeD | October 17, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Besides, I get my best material from Stephen T. Colbert:

"Obama rejects public financing –- so he’s not only a secret Muslim -- he’s a secret hypocrite too."

Posted by: Anonymous | October 17, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

There's a bizarre new Sarah video out:

http://tinyurl.com/spookee

More horrible than you can imagine!

Posted by: Tom M | October 17, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Sara:

No one said anything about "acquittal" -- because no formal charges were even filed against her -- the Legislature simply hired an outside party to report back on his findings. Gov. Palin is not lying about the findings. And, neither is the "pressuring Monegan to fire Wooten" allegation was not a "separate charge of misconduct" (as it was specifically included in the Report, saying EVEN IF SHE PRESSURED MONEGAN, it was not the sole reason he was fired and, therefore, proper and lawful).

Quoting from Finding Number Two:

"I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, 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."

If OTOH Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten had been the sole reason Monegan was terminated, that wouldn't have been a proper and lawful exercise of her authority -- to me, the Report is concluding she did nothing illegal or unethical -- does that make sense?

onestring and glorigirl (or anyone else who has read all my posts about the Branchflower Report):

Please let me know if you still have any questions.

Posted by: JakeD | October 17, 2008 6:30 PM | Report abuse

This is really getting ridiculous! Can we try to dredge up anything else? I've never seen a more shameful smearing of a candidate for office! As a democrat, I'm going to vote McCain/Palin, because of their POLICIES and PHILOSOPHIES.
The democratic party should change their name to the socialist party from now on.
I find Governor Sarah Palin refreshing and she has more experience than Obama!
This business up in Alaska has been way oveplayed and exaggerated, just like they are trying to take her comments about 'small town America' as a slam to bigger cities. That's totally not what she said at all. Now, what Obama said about small town America clinging to our guns & religion --- now THAT was a slam and I took it as a personal insult from him, and it DID sway my opinion of him and he lost this girl's vote!

VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN!!!! It's not too late!

Posted by: 1stMomof5 | October 20, 2008 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Apparently Bob isn't too concerned about abuse of power and using executive powers for personal vendettas, nor is he concerned about allowing those executive powers and access to personal information to be utilized by a spouse for such vendettas. Nor is he concerned about deceitful tactics by the Palin administration to obstruct or even deny the process of the investigation.

But Bob probably voted for George Bush and Dick Cheney, so that all makes sense...

Posted by: jch_009 | October 20, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company