No, I'm not covering this story. No way. The media will spin. The media will omit the part about the guy who headed the panel being a die-hard Obama supporter. The media will omit the part about how Obama's neglected to be honest on ANYTHING from his past (with a complicit media), yet Palin is in DEEP DOO DOO for this, something for which she'd have recused herself from running if she felt she'd really done wrong. You all KNOW this. Frankly, Scarlett.. I don't give a damn what the media says anymore. Palin's a breath of fresh air, she's smart and she's authentic. She's like a cross to a vampire (the vampire being the Left). Let them talk. They not only have all the networks, CNN, every big city paper, most films and TV, celebs, etc., but now they have little ACORNS working to turn democracy on its ear (imagine that this is the kind of "TEACHING" the Ayers/Obama people are for...teaching to CHEAT OUR COUNTRY?). I'm not getting upset over this. (much) And I know NOTHIN' 'bout birthin' babies, but, it sounds like a picnic in the park compared to this election.
z
71 comments:
Darlin..I know you know nuthing bout birthin no babies.
It is ok...
Palin is fine..she broke no laws, she did nothing wrong.
It has been admitted this was a big witch hunt, sponsored by Obamabots.
( and help from people in her own party , whose toes Sarah had tread upon.)
You know what Miz Scarlett would say..,"I'll think about that tomorrw, because tomorrow is another day."
Sarah Palin is a Mayflower descendent, she is tough.
WVDOTTR
WV, did you hear that Palin is also a cousin of Princess Diana and Franklin Delano Roosevelt?..yup. Saw the connections this morning.
As I told Mr. Z (and I've discussed this with you many times in private emails!) "it matters not the truth, what matters is that most Americans have only seen the BIG MEDIA HEADLINES "Palin abused power"
so not good. BUT, I'm not going to worry. As I said.
I'm just going to slit my wrists, Mz Melanie!! HEH HEH!! (don't worry, I don't know nothin' about doin' THAT, neither!)
More grasping at straws by the fearful left.
david, check out shoprat's new blog. See his profile page to find the link, I think you'll like what you see.
blessings! z
That was super! He's right! Thank you Z. God Bless you. Keep looking UP! (Lk.21:28)
I saw the dreadful breaking news on Fox about the Alaska legislature’s bipartisan board finding that Palin had abused her power as governor.
Don’t slit your wrists, Z. It’s the fault of the media–––Fox and all the rest. No one believes the media reports the Truth. Right? Right?
Mizz Z,
We all know how the media is. In fact, the whole country is saying these days they know how the media is.
And that's ok, too.
Looks like that is what is really irritating to people, that the media is nothing but a bunch of jackals spouting talking points for one political party.
I think the people who see Sarah Palin can figure it out.
Besides, Sarah has the pulpit out on the stump.
They have changed the location for Palin's speech in Va.. It will now be at the Richmond Speedway.
That place can sit 106,000 people.
And yes, I knew Sarah was distantly related to Princess Diana, and George W. Bush..and I knew Bush was a distant relative of Princess Diana's.
They share some common ancestors to Churchill.
Small world.
WVDOTTR
Psi Bond,
What is it with the left and their loyalty to jackbooted thug cops who take joy in driving drunk, beating their wifes, tasering children, and threatening to kill people?
beamish, what is it with the right that they imagine it is only members of the left that engage in drunk driving (Bush is on the left?) and violence? Is it their love of stigmatizing whole groups?
This "October surprise" fell flat. Oh well, the libs will have to go back to talking about the Keeting Five scandal, they had the country on the edge of their seats over that one.
I’ve got to chuckle: This October surprise, the Palin failin’, just broke and a rightwinger has declared already that it fell flat.
Good for you, Z.
Good for you, Z. You couldn’t do it. Could you?
One partisan hack on a panel said he personally felt that Palin was abusing her power. Wow.
Well, must not have been much to it, because she hasn't been charged with anything nor fined .
So.
WVDOTTR
You have to admit it’s funny: Palin, who allegedly battled against unethical politicians in her state, was found to be one of the unethical politicians.
An investigation by the Alaska Legislature has found that Sarah Palin knowingly “permitted Tod 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.” Further, it says, she “knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda.”
What now lies ahead is not fully known at this point. Ms. Palin could be censured by the Legislature, but that seems unlikely.
The McCain campaign flew a team of operatives into Alaska to wage a public relations campaign to discredit the Legislature's investigation and to help mount legal challenges to it, since the its finding of unethical conduct could undermine the campaign's portrayal of Palin as an ethics reformer.
Psi Bond,
Bush is not a jackbooted cop, especially not in the leftist tradition of the KGB, the Gestapo, Bull Connor, and apparently Walter Monegan's Alaska Highway Patrol.
According to the "hostile witness" AP wire:
A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner. The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.
"It likely was a contributing factor."
Can they ballpark the likelihood, with a probability estimate? Especially given that Monegan was fired for a slew of other reasons unrelated to Stormtrooper Wooten?
Bush is not a jackbooted cop, especially not in the leftist tradition of the KGB, the Gestapo, Bull Connor, and apparently Walter Monegan's Alaska Highway Patrol.
As I previously indicated, Bush has a DUI. He got arrested for drunk driving when he was 30 years old. Cheney was convicted twice of drunk driving in an eight-month period. I don’t believe either one of them is a liberal.
American liberals present no support at all for the human rights violations for which the illiberal KGB and Bull Connor are known, and for which you here irrationally indict the whole Alaska Highway Patrol.
According to the "hostile witness" AP wire:
A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner. The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.
"It likely was a contributing factor."
Can they ballpark the likelihood, with a probability estimate? Especially given that Monegan was fired for a slew of other reasons unrelated to Stormtrooper Wooten?
In standard English, ‘ballpark’ is not a verb. If AP is a hostile witness, then logically you should not give it any credence.
Palin and her husband had exerted pressure to get Trooper Michael Wooten dismissed (he is still on the force), thus creating conflicts of interests for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior’s displeasure and its possible consequences. This concerted effort, the report concludes, is a violation of a part of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
Psi Bond,
As I previously indicated, Bush has a DUI. He got arrested for drunk driving when he was 30 years old. Cheney was convicted twice of drunk driving in an eight-month period. I don’t believe either one of them is a liberal.
For that matter, I have a DUI too. That's immaterial. Stormtrooper Wooten was caught driving drunk, on duty, in his Alaska Highway Patrol car. Stormtrooper Wooten used his Alaska Highway Patrol issued taser gun to assault Sarah Palin's nephew, his step-son. Stormtrooper Wooten made death threats against his ex-wife and father-in-law, Sarah Palin's sister and father, recorded on tape. Talk about an ethics violations.
The Palin family's efforts to get Stormtrooper Wooten terminated from the ASHP predate her governorship. It appears to me that Sarah Palin's husband Todd took up the effort against Stormtrooper Wooten after Sarah Palin became governor.
Monegan was fired for several reasons not related to Stormtrooper Wooten. Monegan himself presents no case that he was fired for not firing Stormtrooper Wooten.
All we have is speculative "likely contributing factor." A mixed motive, as it were. Without the Stormtrooper Wooten angle, Monegan's termination was legitimate for the other unrelated reasons. There is nothing in the report against Palin that says otherwise.
And that isn't all that bad. Firing Monegan for not firing a state trooper with the documented misbehavior of Stormtrooper Wooten is a no-brainer.
American liberals present no support at all for the human rights violations for which the illiberal KGB and Bull Connor are known, and for which you here irrationally indict the whole Alaska Highway Patrol.
No, I indict Walter Monegan. Apparently having a drunk driving Alaska Highway Patrolman running around tasering kids and making death threats against his in-laws was okay with him.
And that this whole case sticks on the Stormtrooper Wooten angle rather than Monegan's other areas of incompetence for which he was fired merely finds the left cheerleading for a thuggish rogue cop in a similar way to how American leftists of the past cheered their fellow leftists in Soviet Russia's KGB and Nazi Germany.
Please make me destroy any and all efforts to present the American left as championing human rights.
I love doing that.
Palin shouldn't take this personally. The Democrats destroy ANY member of their "protected subgroup" (women/minorities) who have the audacity to leave the Democratic plantation and attempt to "make it on their own". Clarence Thomas... Alberto Gonzalez... etc., etc.
It serves as a warning to the other "dependents" of the need to stay on the plantation... because they WILL destroy you.
LOL, OK Z, I see your point.
But I did it for you.
Take a look at my blof of this morning..
I'm also guilty of Blogging on this today.
I'm with you, Z. Palin did nothing wrong, and as Governor I believe it was her job to see to it that the idiot who would tazer a kid lost his job. Who wants a Trooper who does such a thing? The man is unhinged!
Screw the media - they are nothing but a bunch of overpaid drama queens!
Has anyone thought about how long these 'investigations' usually take and how utterly coincidental and astonishing it is that the decision came down NOW? Sort of like when Bush's one DUI came up just before the election, right? WHAT a coincidence!!!! This thing sprang back into life only after the networks and CNN had sent thirty 'journalists' up to Alaska to find SOMETHING against Palin. It wasn't easy, as most of you've seen from coverage of her. But, find something they did!
Maybe Obama IS our man, huh? He has minions willing to do his bidding and who knows how close he is to his supporter who's the only one who ruled against her, according to WV? That shows SOMETHING! It shows he's mean, nasty, plays well with others (if they support him), can make people jump to his needs...well...it's SOMETHING!
Ya, Bush drove drunk once. Hasn't any of you driven (especially when you were the age he was then) knowing you probably shouldn't QUITE be driving? You're not drunk, but if you had a tail light out and didn't realize it and were stopped, you'd be hoping they didn't test you? Sure you have. Sure.
This whole thing brought Ted Kennedy and Mary Joe Kopechne to mind....somehow, I couldn't ignore the irony. As you know, there's proof now she was dead for about an hour; the coroner said she'd been gasping for air in what little space which, finally, sadly, wasn't there anymore, from how her body was contorted; that would be while Kennedy drunkenly fuond his way home and into his bed to figure out how the hell he was getting out of THIS one. Imagine the amount of advisors in that 'bed'? Ya. terrible.
But, Bush is a drunk. Right.
Sad, isn't it.
When the Left owns the media, there isn't ANYTHING it won't do for them.
We are running against a crooked, lying, shady man who doesn't want us to know about the horrid alliances he's had (imagine the media staying quiet if McCain had his first campaign event in ...gee,.... I can't think of a Republican subversive who bombed and killed our police and tried to bomb hundreds in a public building......hmmm sorry, just can't think of any. (oh, ya..I think 2 were horrid enough to stand up against abortion and actually did kill a couple of doctors; they were repentent and are still, rightfully, serving time...Ayers said "Guilty as hell, and free as a BIRD, what a country" remember? Ya, you do)
Well, anyway, you get my point. But, as the Obama advisor screamed to Ari Fleischer the other day when he brought up the campaign event in Ayers' home "it was just a COFFEE" (what? OH, JUST a coffee.......no problem, ) As Ari said "Oh, they didn't serve FOOD so this doesn't count for having been held in Ayers' LIVING ROOM?!"
Obama's birth certificate; ignored.
Health records not forthcoming: ignored
FACT that he probably couldn't pass security clearance for the FBI: ignored (why not check?)
Story that Khalil al Man Sour paid for his Harvard education: ignored (couldn't he just tell us who DID?)
FACT that a publishing house came to a young kid out of college to write his MEMOIRS? WHAT? Who owns the publishing house? ignored
FACT that he lied totally about the Ayers connection, never mentioned his wife worked with Dohrn and other things only now coming out: "we only live in the same neighborhood" Ignored
on and on and on.
But OBAMA'S THEIR MAN!!
And wouldn't it make all of YOU feel warm and cuddly to know that he's Farrakhan's man, too? And Ayers' man, too? And Cornel West and Ward Churchill's man, TOO? And anti-Jewish, anti-government creep we can come up with?
Amazing.
but, Palin's husband might have been so mad at Wooton's tasering his son that he pushed HARD to get this creep out of the service to Alaska....imagine if the creep had tasered an innocent kid during the line of his duty? I'd have made sure the guy was fired, too.just in case.
FJ...you are SO RIGHT. They will DESTROY! I'm wondering how hard a hit the Los Angeles NOW president will be after having endorsed Palin. I'm thinking she will NOT be president NEXT year. TRUST ME ON THAT>
Remember, you're only PRO CHOICE if it's the choice LEFTISTS would make.
You're only a WOMAN if you behave like their women do (God forbid)
YOu're only a good American if you're a liberal.
ugh...the list is endless...what a travesty, what a subversion of the freedoms of thought and speech the Conservatives cherish.
Thanks for most of your remarks, folks...
No big deal..all she did was misuse her office for personal reasons. We expect that in GOP candidates. :)
That's right, BB...Democrats are always honest. Sort of like when Obama told us he only knew Ayers from having "lived in the same neighborhood"...right?
Sort of like Clinton having sex with a kid in the WH and lying in our faces? No abuse of power for personal gain. I know!
I know...Barney Frank did nothing with this latest mess, either. Pelosi's honest, too. Or Christopher Dodd..no abuse for personal gain...$$
But...we both could go on. what's the point? We have a country to save!! Thanks for coming by!
"Troopergate" is a mediocre scandal that I'm sure will be blown up big time now, while the very serious Ayers scandal seems to be seeping away through the political cracks of double standards.
Cracks me up that they cover her 'scandals' to such extreme, yet Obama's connections get so little coverage.
No, it doesn't make me laugh. It makes me sick.
Z,
I can't think of a Republican subversive who bombed and killed our police and tried to bomb hundreds in a public building...
Even Timothy McVeigh was a registered Democrat.
beamish, I didn't know...SURPRISE!? not
thanks for writing that blog post for me !!! LOL!
You know an interesting point was raised just a few posts ago, speaking about how we expect scandals from Republican candidates. Actually, I was thinking about this just last night, & it is really just the opposite. This may come across as sour grapes, & being s sinner saved by grace it is possible that could be involved, I don't deny it. Yet the truth is that we HAVE come to expect Democrats to be unethical, such is why the Ayers & multitudes of other scandals on the left are yawners today. We just have come to expect it, & we go on. But, when a Republican, especially one of the character of Mrs. Palin is supposed to have breached an ethical bond, then it is a shocker. We DON'T expect it from one of her caliber. I am not saying she did anything wrong nor denying it at this point. I am simply making an observation. Is it not a double-standard? OK, I'm done & may the Lord bless you, Z!
Psi loves to ignore any inconvenient truths. She seems to be fixated on Bush's DUI, what about the already mentioned Kennedy "accident"(is there a Kennedy who has not driven under the influence of alcohol or drugs?), then of course let's not forget that her Messiah has admitted to drug use (a chip off the old Bill?).
Summed up in two words:
SMALL POTATOES.
J.J.J. Schmidt
To beamish, who has in common with Bush and Cheney DUIs (and, like them, is anti-liberal), you should give to the Alaska Legislature committee your ardent speculative testimony, which assumes the truth of reportage from a source that you consider of dubious veracity. Perhaps they would believe you, at least the conservative half.
An independent investigator for the State Legislature has concluded that Palin abused the powers of her office by pressuring subordinates to dismiss Michael Wooten, her former brother-in-law, and that her claims of fearing him were a facade to mask a maneuver in a family dispute. The investigator said that evidence, like the governor’s decision to reduce the manpower of her security detail, showed that “such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins’ real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons.”
Although Palin was determined to have violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act for advancing a personal agenda, the undeniable truth is: Article I of the U.S. Constitution says nothing about ethics standards for Alaska gubernatorial officials.
Palin was an instant star–––a (moose) shooting star that fell to earth.
Nonetheless, let the discrediting of the messenger proceed apace.
beamish: Even Timothy McVeigh was a registered Democrat.
Z: beamish, I didn't know...SURPRISE!? not
Z, how gullible and vulnerable you are to misinformation!
Wikipedia: "McVeigh was known throughout his life as a loner; his only known affiliations were voter registration with the Republican Party when he lived in New York, and a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military."
chuck: Psi loves to ignore any inconvenient truths. She seems to be fixated on Bush's DUI, what about the already mentioned Kennedy "accident"(is there a Kennedy who has not driven under the influence of alcohol or drugs?), then of course let's not forget that her Messiah has admitted to drug use (a chip off the old Bill?).
In truth, chuck, you ignore the inconvenient truth that my point was NOT that no liberals have had DUIs or admitted to drug use, but that DUIs are not a distinguishing characteristic of liberals, as beamish sought to imply.
Z,
If you have not yet, please check out Hugh Hewitt's article at Townhall.com titled, "Branchflower report on Tasergate: Just one guy's opinion that contradicts itself and ignores the relevant facts and law..."
I think you'll be enlightened, & encouraged. May the Lord bless you!
how gullible you are, psi bond.
ONE member of the 'panel' said that Palin had abused power...an avowed Obama reporter.
With all the fantastic references and unbelievably clean reputation Mrs. Palin has, it's clear to see why Liberals are gleeful over this guy's decision, but it's such a little thing that there's no fine, no nothing.
What's REALLY hilarious is that nobody can name 5 acquaintances of Obama's who haven't been radicals or cheaters. Unless you don't consider Ayers, Farrakhan, Rezko, Raines, Johnson, Wright, Fleger, Frantz Fanon (look him up, that'll curl your hair..yet ANOTHER radical buddy of his), etc., radicals. Maybe you don't; how could you possibly vote for him if you did?
Oh, my. Mrs. Palin's husband wanted a trooper with a bad record and who tasered his own child to not be allowed to do that again and (gasp!) she didn't abort her child...MAYBE it's NOT her child. And did you know the Palins are SWINGERS, too?
hilarious
David, thank you, the truth is there, I have read it...but the problem is the media isn't telling Americans the truth.
That's what's got me down,,, The fact that we don't hear the real truth; that there are enough people in this country so uncurious about Obama or so into handouts, people who believe raising taxes on corporations is going to create jobs, etc etc etc, that they'll vote for this horrible man.
I'm trying to keep my chin up, David..thank you SO much for your encouragement. You are a real blessing here at my site.
Thank you, Z, for your kindness.
I still really believe there are more Americans like you that are gonna vote than we realize. But again, our real hope ain't in this world anyway! (1Thess.4:13-18)
Psi Bond,
...but that DUIs are not a distinguishing characteristic of liberals, as beamish sought to imply.
Your definitively leftist lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again.
I wrote nothing about liberals.
I did write about the traditional leftist support for jackbooted cops, which included support for their fellow leftists in Nazi Germany's Gestapo and the Soviet KGB.
There's a far cry of difference between a civilian breaking a law and a law enforcement officer breaking a law.
Z: how gullible you are, psi bond.
Unlike you, I am not gullible enough to believe Timothy McVeigh was a Democrat because beamish wrote that here.
ONE member of the 'panel' said that Palin had abused power...an avowed Obama reporter.
It was the conclusion of the report released by a bipartisan committee of the Alaska State Legislature. The McCain campaign is saying it is just one disreputable man's opinion.
With all the fantastic references and unbelievably clean reputation Mrs. Palin has, it's clear to see why Liberals are gleeful over this guy's decision, but it's such a little thing that there's no fine, no nothing.
Sarah Palin, who blatantly lied about her support for the infamous bridge to nowhere, gave as one of the paramount reasons that she and her husband had for voicing their concerns about Trooper Michael Wooten, her former brother-in-law, and pressuring subordinates, was that they and their relatives lived in fear of him. However, if Trooper Wooten was inclined to harm any of the Palins, then having him terminated could lead to an act of retaliation. Forcing him out of his job “would not have de-escalated the situation or provided” Ms. Palin or her family with “greater security,” the report stated. A governor’s security detail employee told the Alaska legislative investigator about the Palins, “I never really felt they were in fear of Mr. Wooten doing anything to them.”
What's REALLY hilarious is that nobody can name 5 acquaintances of Obama's who haven't been radicals or cheaters. Unless you don't consider Ayers, Farrakhan, Rezko, Raines, Johnson, Wright, Fleger, Frantz Fanon (look him up, that'll curl your hair..yet ANOTHER radical buddy of his), etc., radicals. Maybe you don't; how could you possibly vote for him if you did?
Maybe you do, Z; I don’t have to look Fanon up to know who he was. But the facts are: Dr. Frantz Fanon , whose published works concerning the effect of colonial subjugation on humanity inspired anti-colonial liberation movements, died on December 6, 1961. Obama was born August 4, 1961. So it appears unlikely that Fanon was one of Obama’s buddies (in your words: “ANOTHER radical buddy of his”)–––that is misinformation at best, a political lie at worst. Just like beamish’s statement that Timothy McVeigh was a registered Democrat, that you were so eager to swallow. Guess who said the other day that Obama is a decent man and a decent citizen? Your presidential candidate: John McCain. Z, since the Palin-McVeigh camp began attacking the character of Obama, Obama’s advantage in the polls has risen from +5.9 to +7.6 in the RCP average of national polls.
Oh, my. Mrs. Palin's husband wanted a trooper with a bad record and who tasered his own child to not be allowed to do that again and (gasp!) she didn't abort her child...MAYBE it's NOT her child. And did you know the Palins are SWINGERS, too?
It was his step-child. (I know the National Enquirer has printed stories that Ms. Palin is unfaithful in her marriage). Are the Palins swingers? Or just vindictive stingers?
“Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance,” said Christopher Buckley, the son of William F. Buckley.
hilarious
hysterical
In truth, chuck, you ignore the inconvenient truth that my point was NOT that no liberals have had DUIs or admitted to drug use, but that DUIs are not a distinguishing characteristic of liberals, as beamish sought to imply.
beamish: Your definitively leftist lack of reading comprehension skills is showing again.
From my quoted words above, it's clear that lack of reading comprehension skills is not confined to those whom you call leftists.
I wrote nothing about liberals.
If it is true that you wrote nothing about liberals, your comment is out of touch with the contemporary political climate in America. Communists and others on the far left are not a major element of the political scene in this country.
I did write about the traditional leftist support for jackbooted cops, which included support for their fellow leftists in Nazi Germany's Gestapo and the Soviet KGB.
In America, liberals are the mainstream of the political left, and they have traditionally supported human rights and championed the dignity of the individual and privacy rights and other rights of the individual.
There's a far cry of difference between a civilian breaking a law and a law enforcement officer breaking a law.
That's true. The state governor, in her role as an executive, is the chief member of the law enforcement branch of state government. So if she is found in violation of the law, it is a more serious transgression than if it were an executive of a private corporation.
Psi Bond,
If it is true that you wrote nothing about liberals, your comment is out of touch with the contemporary political climate in America. Communists and others on the far left are not a major element of the political scene in this country.
What do you mean "if it is true?"
Can't you read, you idiot leftist?
Not only did I not write about liberals, there's plenty of evidence out there to suggest that the far left is in fact a major part of the political scene.
If the far left were not a major part of the political scene, whenever the left is mentioned, the leftists that call themselves "liberals" wouldn't reflexively jump up thinking someone was talking about them and trying to put distance between themselves and the leftists of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia by calling their fellow leftists "far leftists."
And we certainly wouldn't have a Democratic Party Presidential candidate with the "far" leftist biography that currently we do.
In America, liberals are the mainstream of the political left, and they have traditionally supported human rights and championed the dignity of the individual and privacy rights and other rights of the individual.
For who? The history of the "liberal" party in American politics, the Democratic Party, begins with Constitution-hating anti-Federalists under Aaron Burr reacting defiantly against the ban on funding North and West African Islamic terrorists in exchange for human slaves and ends with today's Democrats wanting clipper chips in everyone's computers and cell phones, scanning your downloads for Metallica songs, hacking your private e-mail and publishing it to the public, demanding a "Fairness Doctrine" against advertising supported commercial radio shows, and forming "Truth Squads" to direct elected law enforcement officials to use their offices for political campaign activities.
And that doesn't even get into the formation of the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Palmer raids, Japanese internments, illegal surveillance of civil rights leaders and Bull Connor tactics in between.
The Democratic Party has always been the party of the left. Or "liberals" if you must taint the word.
But it has never been the party of human rights and individual freedom.
Which brings us back to Stormtrooper Wooten.
To wrongfully interpret the findings of the Alaskan witch hunt for ethics violations as you do, you must:
1.) Pretend it is unusual for anyone to want to see removed from the state highway patrol a person who has commited crimes with state-owned property (driving drunk in a patrol car, assaulting minors with a taser gun, etc.)
2.) Ignore the reasons given by Sarah Palin for the Monegan dismissal that the "investigation" ruled to be legitimate on their own merits irrespective of the Wooten related issue.
And so, we're back to the spin.
The leftist charge is "Salin Palin is unethical for trying to get a drunk jackbooted child-assaulting thug fired."
Could you make us yawn any louder, Psi Bond?
If it is true that you wrote nothing about liberals, your comment is out of touch with the contemporary political climate in America. Communists and others on the far left are not a major element of the political scene in this country.
What do you mean "if it is true?"
I mean a logical proposition. Its antecedent ("if it is true?") is worded as a conditional clause beginning with 'if'.
Can't you read, you idiot leftist?
Do you know anything about how logical propositions are constructed? If I were to posit a logical proposition about what you have done, I would word it as I have done. Which I did. You didn’t get it.
Not only did I not write about liberals, there's plenty of evidence out there to suggest that the far left is in fact a major part of the political scene. If the far left were not a major part of the political scene, whenever the left is mentioned, the leftists that call themselves "liberals" wouldn't reflexively jump up thinking someone was talking about them and trying to put distance between themselves and the leftists of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia by calling their fellow leftists "far leftists."
You give no objective evidence that the far left is in fact a major part of the political scene. In fact, you are conflating distinct political groups with very different ideologies. The fact that American liberals may object to being lumped with leftists in Nazi Germany, who were not a major element and were mostly killed off by the Nazis (thus gaining the support of some prominent twentieth century American conservatives), and the communists who had power in the Soviet Union–––that is not evidence that these two groups are a major element of the American political scene. Unlike liberals, the Communist Party of the United States is not a powerful force in Congress and not in national or state politics in this country. Pretending that it is meaningful to talk of the CPUSA as if it is important and can be grouped with liberals is a common rightwing smear tactic. It would be equivalent to my persistently talking about rightwingers as “all the abortion clinic bombers and others on the right”, thus mentioning moderates and radicals in one breath, so to speak.
And we certainly wouldn't have a Democratic Party Presidential candidate with the "far" leftist biography that currently we do.
You fail to make an important distinction between the current Democratic Party Presidential candidate and how he is aggressively portrayed by rightwing peopagandists. His millions of supporters do not believe Obama is a "'far' leftist".
.In America, liberals are the mainstream of the political left, and they have traditionally supported human rights and championed the dignity of the individual and privacy rights and other rights of the individual.
For who? The history of the "liberal" party in American politics, the Democratic Party, begins with Constitution-hating anti-Federalists under Aaron Burr reacting defiantly against the ban on funding North and West African Islamic terrorists in exchange for human slaves and ends with today's Democrats wanting clipper chips in everyone's computers and cell phones, scanning your downloads for Metallica songs, hacking your private e-mail and publishing it to the public, demanding a "Fairness Doctrine" against advertising supported commercial radio shows, and forming "Truth Squads" to direct elected law enforcement officials to use their offices for political campaign activities.
’Liberals’ is not synonymous with ‘Democrats’. Like many fiercely anti-liberal rightwingers, you omit making a distinction between liberalism and the Democratic Party. For most of its history, rightwingers have held a lot of power in the Democratic Party. In the nineteenth century, the Democratic Party was split between Northern liberals and Southern conservatives. This ideological split continued in the twentieth century. The almost complete polarization of the two major parties along modern liberal-conservative ideological lines is a late twentieth century, post-Civil-Rights-Era development. The Democratic Party of today has become identified with support for the right of privacy, gay rights, human rights as a cornerstone of foreign policy, the liberation of women from traditional roles, and the primacy of science in explaining and investigating the natural world. The Republican Party has become identified with often determined opposition to these liberal positions. Many conservative Republicans have advocated intrusive surveillance of citizens, indefinite imprisonment without recourse to a lawyer, and the wanton use of nukes to gain American objectives abroad; they have been more militaristic and less respectful of the rights of the individual.
And that doesn't even get into the formation of the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, the Palmer raids, Japanese internments, illegal surveillance of civil rights leaders and Bull Connor tactics in between.
A disingenuous but popular tactic of the right is to identify the rightwing outrages of conservatives in the Democratic Party with the Democratic Party itself, desperately hoping to shift the blame for them onto liberals, since liberals are now the majority in the Party.
The Democratic Party has always been the party of the left. Or "liberals" if you must taint the word.
As a matter of history, the Democratic Party has not always been the party of the left. It was once the party of slave-holders.
But it has never been the party of human rights and individual freedom.
That is blatantly false. In fact, the first U.S. president to promote the centrality of human rights in foreign policy was a Democrat. And when Bill Clinton pursued the war in Kosovo to prevent the ethnic cleansing of its Albanians, most of those opposed were rightwingers. They disdained humanitarian wars. Strom Thurmond, who in 1948 split from the Democratic Party to run for president on a segregationist platform, migrated after the passage of the Civil Rights Act sponsored by LBJ to the Republican Party. Zell Miller, who stayed on in the Democratic Party, called LBJ a traitor to the South. Miller was a favorite of rightwingers.
Which brings us back to Stormtrooper Wooten.
This is really about Governor Palin not Trooper Wooten.
To wrongfully interpret the findings of the Alaskan witch hunt for ethics violations as you do, you must:
The term "Alaskan witch hunt" is blatant rightwing spin. The case against Palin predates McCain's picking her for VP on the Republican ticket.
1.) Pretend it is unusual for anyone to want to see removed from the state highway patrol a person who has commited crimes with state-owned property (driving drunk in a patrol car, assaulting minors with a taser gun, etc.)
It is unusual for a governor and her husbamd, a fisherman, to exert great pressure on subordinates to have a former brother-in-law dismissed. There is no established evidence that Wooten “assaulted minors” with a Taser. There is only an allegation by the governor that he tasered his stepson. Palin complained that Wooten on the force made her fear for her life. But she reduced the security detail. She had as governor
2.) Ignore the reasons given by Sarah Palin for the Monegan dismissal that the "investigation" ruled to be legitimate on their own merits irrespective of the Wooten related issue.
The report found that Palin violated state ethics laws and abused her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. The report said Palin's firing of Commissioner Walt Monegan, was a "proper and lawful exercise" of her power to fire department heads for any reason. Monegan has said he was dismissed for refusing to fire the trooper. The report said the pressure Palin and her husband put on Monegan over the trooper was not proper. You ignore the ethics law violations and overemphasize the significance of the legal firing of Monegan.
And so, we're back to the spin.
To your single-minded spin, which is a personal attempt to exonerate a rightwinger of the findings.
The leftist charge is "Salin Palin is unethical for trying to get a drunk jackbooted child-assaulting thug fired."
That is not "the leftist charge". That is the rightwing spin about a mythical leftist charge. The charge made by the Alaska legislature committee is that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power when she and her husband (who is not a government employee) pressured her subordinates to have Wooten fired from his job (albeit unsuccessfully).
Could you make us yawn any louder, Psi Bond?
Can one be yawning while making a vigorous attempt to defend a rightwinger on the Republican ticket? As you yourself pointed out, beamish, an ethics violation committed by the chief law enforcement officer of a state is undeniably more serious than if it were an ordinary citizen. And consequently it is more noteworthy. Especially when the culprit is a self-described reformer who claims virtue for making it her mission to clean up corruption in government.
Psi Bond,
Do you know anything about how logical propositions are constructed? If I were to posit a logical proposition about what you have done, I would word it as I have done. Which I did. You didn’t get it.
If we're to have an honest, respectful dialogue, you're going to have to concede that you're a moron.
You want to talk about liberals when I'm talking about leftists. There was no "if" about the nature of my subject - leftists - to anyone but an illiterate leftist such as yourself.
You give no objective evidence that the far left is in fact a major part of the political scene. In fact, you are conflating distinct political groups with very different ideologies.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927.
Don't tell me the Nazis weren't leftists. Tell Hitler.
The fact that American liberals may object to being lumped with leftists in Nazi Germany, who were not a major element and were mostly killed off by the Nazis (thus gaining the support of some prominent twentieth century American conservatives), and the communists who had power in the Soviet Union–––that is not evidence that these two groups are a major element of the American political scene. Unlike liberals, the Communist Party of the United States is not a powerful force in Congress and not in national or state politics in this country. Pretending that it is meaningful to talk of the CPUSA as if it is important and can be grouped with liberals is a common rightwing smear tactic. It would be equivalent to my persistently talking about rightwingers as “all the abortion clinic bombers and others on the right”, thus mentioning moderates and radicals in one breath, so to speak.
We'll just talk about the government building bombers and others on the left in Obama's political life. When Obama's political curriculum vitae can be traced straight back to SDS "New Party" socialists and Weather Underground terrorists, it's time to start talking about the far left having a major stake in American politics.
A disingenuous but popular tactic of the right is to identify the rightwing outrages of conservatives in the Democratic Party with the Democratic Party itself, desperately hoping to shift the blame for them onto liberals, since liberals are now the majority in the Party.
Get back to me when you decide if the Johnson administration's "conservative" wiretapping the Republican Martin Luther King Jr. was as "liberal" as signing Republican Senator Everett Dirksen's hard-sought Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Democrats should not be ashamed of their civil rights history. If not for the bold work of Bull Connor to turn the firehoses and police dogs loose upon black Americans in front of television cameras, the nation might never have gotten behind the idea that the time had come to take idea of Republicans to pass a Civil Rights Act seriously.
As a matter of history, the Democratic Party has not always been the party of the left. It was once the party of slave-holders.
And there ain't no slaves in the worker's paradise of China.
It is unusual for a governor and her husbamd, a fisherman, to exert great pressure on subordinates to have a former brother-in-law dismissed. There is no established evidence that Wooten “assaulted minors” with a Taser. There is only an allegation by the governor that he tasered his stepson. Palin complained that Wooten on the force made her fear for her life. But she reduced the security detail. She had as governor
The documentation of Wooten's behavior as described by himself in deposition is a matter of public record, available on the internet. All statements I have made about Stormtrooper Wooten are corroborable.
The report found that Palin violated state ethics laws and abused her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. The report said Palin's firing of Commissioner Walt Monegan, was a "proper and lawful exercise" of her power to fire department heads for any reason. Monegan has said he was dismissed for refusing to fire the trooper. The report said the pressure Palin and her husband put on Monegan over the trooper was not proper. You ignore the ethics law violations and overemphasize the significance of the legal firing of Monegan.
How so? If Palin could fire Monegan for any reason, and had several legitimate reasons, then how is it that the allegedly "unethical" reason - for not firing a documentably irresponsible and dangerous state trooper is more significant?
Why doesn't the Wooten story bolster the case which found incompetence to be a legitimate as a reason to fire Monegan?
Can one be yawning while making a vigorous attempt to defend a rightwinger on the Republican ticket? As you yourself pointed out, beamish, an ethics violation committed by the chief law enforcement officer of a state is undeniably more serious than if it were an ordinary citizen. And consequently it is more noteworthy. Especially when the culprit is a self-described reformer who claims virtue for making it her mission to clean up corruption in government.
Firing Monegan and seeking the firing of Stormtrooper Wooten is consistent with an effort to clean up corruption in government.
Do you know anything about how logical propositions are constructed? If I were to posit a logical proposition about what you have done, I would word it as I have done. Which I did. You didn’t get it.
If we're to have an honest, respectful dialogue, you're going to have to concede that you're a moron.
No, beamish, if you're going to have anything approaching honest dialogue with me, you’re going to have to concede you're a brazen smear merchant.
You want to talk about liberals when I'm talking about leftists. There was no "if" about the nature of my subject - leftists - to anyone but an illiterate leftist such as yourself.
Righties like you want to talk about leftists in America as if, contrary to fact, all leftists were liberal Democrats. If that were true, righties would not be whining about RINOs.
You give no objective evidence that the far left is in fact a major part of the political scene. In fact, you are conflating distinct political groups with very different ideologies.
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." - Adolf Hitler, May 1, 1927.
Don't tell me the Nazis weren't leftists. Tell Hitler.
It should suffice to tell rational people that, before Hitler came to power, he made an appeal for alliance to German communists. After the alliance helped bring him to power, he quickly got rid of them. Capitalism flourished during the years of Nazism and survived its collapse. A Hitler quotation from 80 years ago is not rational or objective evidence that the far left is a major part of the current political scene in America.
The fact that American liberals may object to being lumped with leftists in Nazi Germany, who were not a major element and were mostly killed off by the Nazis (thus gaining the support of some prominent twentieth century American conservatives), and the communists who had power in the Soviet Union–––that is not evidence that these two groups are a major element of the American political scene. Unlike liberals, the Communist Party of the United States is not a powerful force in Congress and not in national or state politics in this country. Pretending that it is meaningful to talk of the CPUSA as if it is important and can be grouped with liberals is a common rightwing smear tactic. It would be equivalent to my persistently talking about rightwingers as “all the abortion clinic bombers and others on the right”, thus mentioning moderates and radicals in one breath, so to speak.
We'll just talk about the government building bombers and others on the left in Obama's political life. When Obama's political curriculum vitae can be traced straight back to SDS "New Party" socialists and Weather Underground terrorists, it's time to start talking about the far left having a major stake in American politics.
The not-close connection between Obama and an ex-Weatherman whom he knew in Chicago as a distinguished professor of education is not a connection that goes straight back to SDS "New Party" socialists and Weather Underground terrorists. “A major stake” is quite different from “a major role”, which is what you previously tried to assert. It can be said that white supremacists have a major stake in McCain’s election, but not a major role in American politics.
Obama is not a Weatherman. He is not a terrorist, as some smear merchants claim.
A disingenuous but popular tactic of the right is to identify the rightwing outrages of conservatives in the Democratic Party with the Democratic Party itself, desperately hoping to shift the blame for them onto liberals, since liberals are now the majority in the Party.
Get back to me when you decide if the Johnson administration's "conservative" wiretapping the Republican Martin Luther King Jr. was as "liberal" as signing Republican Senator Everett Dirksen's hard-sought Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Get back to me, beamish, when you can concede that JfK and LBJ were the major forces driving the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Dirksen was a Republican with some liberal sympathies in a less ideologically polarized era. He tried and failed to get Joseph McCarthy to apologize for his misdeeds to stave off censure in 1954. Dirksen voted not to censure him (McCarthy had helped him get elected), but privately conceded that McCarthy "had lost his senses".
Democrats should not be ashamed of their civil rights history.
Liberal Democrats are proud of their positive role in bringing about the Civil Rights Era victories.
If not for the bold work of Bull Connor to turn the firehoses and police dogs loose upon black Americans in front of television cameras, the nation might never have gotten behind the idea that the time had come to take idea of Republicans to pass a Civil Rights Act seriously.
In 1964, the Republican Party was not mostly composed of conservatives, as it is today.
In 1964, the Democratic Party was not mostly composed of liberals, as it is today.
Bull Connor, formerly a hero of many conservatives, was a KKK member and a staunch advocate of racial segregation. Wikipedia states: “As the Public Safety Commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, in the 1960s, Connor became a symbol of bigotry. He infamously fought against integration by using fire hoses and police attack dogs against protest marchers. The spectacle of this being broadcast on national television served as one of the catalysts for major social and legal change in the South and helped in large measure to assure the passage by the United States Congress of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; thus Connor's tactics dramatically backfired into helping to bring about the very change that he was opposing.”
As a matter of history, the Democratic Party has not always been the party of the left. It was once the party of slave-holders.
And there ain't no slaves in the worker's paradise of China.
As far as I know there is no unpaid labor in China, but let’s talk about this country. In the early history of America, conservatives were mainly property owners. Slaves were considered, by slaveholders, to be property. They were opposed to giving their property voting rights and equal political rights.
It is unusual for a governor and her husbamd, a fisherman, to exert great pressure on subordinates to have a former brother-in-law dismissed. There is no established evidence that Wooten “assaulted minors” with a Taser. There is only an allegation by the governor that he tasered his stepson. Palin complained that Wooten on the force made her fear for her life. But she reduced the security detail. She had as governor
The documentation of Wooten's behavior as described by himself in deposition is a matter of public record, available on the internet. All statements I have made about Stormtrooper Wooten are corroborable.
Do you mean capable of being corroborated? Or confirmable? The picture painted by the Palins is pretty bad. The trooper brass isn't saying one way or another, citing personnel rules that protect his files. Union leaders defend him as a dedicated trooper who was already punished for his mistakes.
It cannot be corroborated that Wooten assaulted minors, which is a charge you made.
According to an investigation of Wooten: “One day -- maybe a year or two before the investigation -- Wooten showed his stepson his Taser. He had just been to Taser instructor school. Wooten told Sgt. Wall [trooper Sgt. Ron Wall, the investigator] that the boy was fascinated and pleaded to be tased.
"So we went in our living room and I had him get down on his knees so he wouldn't fall. And I taped the probes to him and turned the Taser on for like a second, turned it off. He thought that was the greatest thing in the world, wanted to do it again," Wooten told the investigator. The boy flinched but nothing more, he said. The boy was about 11 at the time.
In his interview with troopers, the stepson said it hurt for about a second, according to Wall's report. The boy said he wanted to be tased to show his cousin, Palin's daughter Bristol, that he wasn't a mama's boy. The probe left a welt on his arm, he said. His mother was upstairs yelling at them not to do it, the boy said.
The report found that Palin violated state ethics laws and abused her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper. The report said Palin's firing of Commissioner Walt Monegan, was a "proper and lawful exercise" of her power to fire department heads for any reason. Monegan has said he was dismissed for refusing to fire the trooper. The report said the pressure Palin and her husband put on Monegan over the trooper was not proper. You ignore the ethics law violations and overemphasize the significance of the legal firing of Monegan.
How so? If Palin could fire Monegan for any reason, and had several legitimate reasons, then how is it that the allegedly "unethical" reason - for not firing a documentably irresponsible and dangerous state trooper is more significant?
The legal firing of Monegan has nothing to do with the separate finding that you wish to ignore of unethical pressure brought to bear on subordinates to fire Wooten. Palin claimed that her reasons for wanting to fire Wooten, whom she had no power to fire, were justified. The report found they were not. She reduced her security detail when she claimed she lived in fear of Wooten.
Why doesn't the Wooten story bolster the case which found incompetence to be a legitimate as a reason to fire Monegan?
The part of the story Palin’s campaign to get Wooten fired, in which Palin was determined to have acted unethically, is not an integral part of the Monegan story, in which Palin (although she cited performance-related issues) did not need any reason to legally fire Monegan. That was within her power. Firing Wooten was not, and she did not succeed. While her dismissal of Monegan was legal, her conduct regarding Wooten, which Palin and you de-emphasize, violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act of the Ethics Act.
Can one be yawning while making a vigorous attempt to defend a rightwinger on the Republican ticket? As you yourself pointed out, beamish, an ethics violation committed by the chief law enforcement officer of a state is undeniably more serious than if it were an ordinary citizen. And consequently it is more noteworthy. Especially when the culprit is a self-described reformer who claims virtue for making it her mission to clean up corruption in government.
Firing Monegan and seeking the firing of Stormtrooper Wooten is consistent with an effort to clean up corruption in government.
Using the powers of her office for personal purposes–––which is what Palin was found to have done in attempting to get Wooten fired–––is not consistent with her effort to clean up corruption in government. It injures her credibility.
Wow. People still can defend Palin with a straight face? Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
Psi Bond,
Using the powers of her office for personal purposes–––which is what Palin was found to have done in attempting to get Wooten fired–––is not consistent with her effort to clean up corruption in government. It injures her credibility.
I realize that as a leftist, you're ideologically bound to demonstrate wholesale ignorance and a lack of reading comprehension skills, but surely you're not suggesting Todd Palin seeking the dismissal of a state trooper with an incriminating displinary record is an ethics violation on Sarah Palin's part, especially given that the bottom line primary focus of the investigation found that Sarah Palin's firing of Walt Monegan was legitimate. As far as the "likely contributing factor" finding in Monegan's dismissal pertaining to Stormtrooper Wooten, I hope the mind reading device the ethics witch hunt used to determine the "likelihood" of mixed motives will be tested and turned over to our CIA for possible field intelligence use.
You may want to get to know Stormtrooper Wooten a bit better before cozying up to him.
Or, keep cheering that Sarah Palin violated ethics because her family tried to get an unethical state trooper fired. That stance is far more consistent with the leftist need to convince people that all leftists are imbeciles.
Angela,
Wow. People still can defend Palin with a straight face? Oh well, different strokes for different folks.
Yes. We all know Sarah Palin is worse than a candidate once paid by a domestic terrorist to dole out millions of dollars to leftist organizations known mostly for voter registration fraud.
[rolls eyes]
beamish, if it were a liberal Democratic candidate, you would no doubt be among the first to cry she is as guilty as all liberal Democrats are, in your view. But, as a rightwinger, you are evidently bound to the end of your days to loyally defend any extent of unethical conduct in this Republican candidate. Hence you will antically scream again and again about wholesale ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills in those who disagree with you.
The point you consistently refuse or are unable to face or read is that, although Palin could legally fire Monegan for no stated reason, it was not in Palin's power to fire Wooten for any reason. Yet she used and allowed her husband to use the powers of her office to apply heavy pressure on subordinates to get him fired. She is currently telling lies on the campaign trail, saying that the report found she was innocent of unethical conduct.
Although he has been unjustly vilified for assaulting minors, I don't exonerate Wooten, but Wooten's disciplinary record is not relevant to Palin's case, for if Wooten's behavior warranted it, his superior would have disciplined him. In fact, he did, apparently for good cause. But Governor Palin's job is not to micro-manage. In fact, in answer to a rare question accepted from a reporter, that is what she claimed: "I do not micro-manage". Clearly, she is a deceptive person, not really a model of the transparent, selfless government she pretends to champion. It seems that's OK with Republicans like you.
Psi Bond,
beamish, if it were a liberal Democratic candidate, you would no doubt be among the first to cry she is as guilty as all liberal Democrats are, in your view. But, as a rightwinger, you are evidently bound to the end of your days to loyally defend any extent of unethical conduct in this Republican candidate. Hence you will antically scream again and again about wholesale ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills in those who disagree with you.
Actually, if Sarah Palin were a Democrat seeking to get a state trooper with Wooten's bad character and disciplinary record fired, I'd be shocked at the exception she'd be to my general rule of thumb that all Democrats are scumbuckets.
The point you consistently refuse or are unable to face or read is that, although Palin could legally fire Monegan for no stated reason, it was not in Palin's power to fire Wooten for any reason. Yet she used and allowed her husband to use the powers of her office to apply heavy pressure on subordinates to get him fired. She is currently telling lies on the campaign trail, saying that the report found she was innocent of unethical conduct.
It did indeed find her innocent. The charge of the investigation was "Did Sarah Palin fire Walt Monegan for not firing Stormtrooper Wooten?" "Likely contributing factor" is mealymouthed language that won't hold up in court. The investigation found Monegan was fired legitimately, irrespective of the Wooten situation.
Although he has been unjustly vilified for assaulting minors, I don't exonerate Wooten, but Wooten's disciplinary record is not relevant to Palin's case, for if Wooten's behavior warranted it, his superior would have disciplined him. In fact, he did, apparently for good cause. But Governor Palin's job is not to micro-manage. In fact, in answer to a rare question accepted from a reporter, that is what she claimed: "I do not micro-manage". Clearly, she is a deceptive person, not really a model of the transparent, selfless government she pretends to champion. It seems that's OK with Republicans like you.
Well, considering she probably should have shot Wooten from a helicopter, I can accept that she did what she could to get him removed from the Alaskan Highway Patrol.
To my eyes, it's rather disgusting that Wooten wasn't fired in the first place, long before Palin became governor.
beamish: Yes. We all know Sarah Palin is worse than a candidate once paid by a domestic terrorist to dole out millions of dollars to leftist organizations known mostly for voter registration fraud.
We all know that the party of absolute moral values, when found guilty of unethical conduct, will seek to acquit itself by means of moral relativism, urgently pointing to supposed violations by the other party.
Psi Bond,
We all know that the party of absolute moral values, when found guilty of unethical conduct, will seek to acquit itself by means of moral relativism, urgently pointing to supposed violations by the other party.
Actually, we all know that the deeply-rooted leftist need to convince people that all leftists are imbeciles compels you to say Sarah Palin was found "guilty of unethical conduct" (she was not, investigations are not trials, dipshit) to deflect from the fact that the Democratic Party candidate for President gave money meant for Chicago schools to election fraud engineers.
The investigation into Gov. Palin's firing of Walt Monegan (a man she appointed to his office in the first place) led to Monegan's claim he was fired for not firing Stormtrooper Wooten. The investigation found that Monegan was rightly and justifiably fired for incompetence, with the Wooten leg of the story being a "likely contributing factor" - which unspun just shows Wooten not being fired as an example of the incompetence that got Monegan fired.
Actually, if Sarah Palin were a Democrat seeking to get a state trooper with Wooten's bad character and disciplinary record fired, I'd be shocked at the exception she'd be to my general rule of thumb that all Democrats are scumbuckets.
I doubt you would be shocked–––just like you ignore that she was found to have abused her power, you would ignore the exception it presented to your judgment and continue to believe what it pleases you to believe.
It did indeed find her innocent. The charge of the investigation was "Did Sarah Palin fire Walt Monegan for not firing Stormtrooper Wooten?" "Likely contributing factor" is mealymouthed language that won't hold up in court. The investigation found Monegan was fired legitimately, irrespective of the Wooten situation.
Despite your obfuscation, the fact is it found that Palin violated Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act of the Ethics Act. Palin said on the campaign trail, “I’m very, very pleased to be cleared … of any kind of unethical activity”.
Well, considering she probably should have shot Wooten from a helicopter, I can accept that she did what she could to get him removed from the Alaskan Highway Patrol.
Why did she discriminate against Mike Wooten, her ex-brother-in-law? Why did she not hunt down and shoot all of the misbehaving troopers from a government helicopter? Or at least offer sportsmen a bounty of $150 for each severed forepaw of same?
To my eyes, it's rather disgusting that Wooten wasn't fired in the first place, long before Palin became governor.
Your arctic temperament notwithstanding, maybe Wooten remains a trooper today because, in a state with a population of little more than 600,000, the manpower supply is not very broad for men or women wanting to become Alaska troopers. Perhaps disciplinary action suffices, since it isn’t reported that Wooten has gotten into subsequent trouble.
We all know that the party of absolute moral values, when found guilty of unethical conduct, will seek to acquit itself by means of moral relativism, urgently pointing to supposed violations by the other party.
Actually, we all know that the deeply-rooted leftist need to convince people that all leftists are imbeciles compels you to say Sarah Palin was found "guilty of unethical conduct" (she was not, investigations are not trials, dipshit) to deflect from the fact that the Democratic Party candidate for President gave money meant for Chicago schools to election fraud engineers.
Since you keep repeating the same rightwing drivel over and over, we know you have a deep psychological need to find what you call “leftists” guilty of anything bad. ‘Guilty’ in layman’s language means ‘culpable’ or ‘at fault’. And you need to obfuscate furiously with unrelated accusations about liberal Democrats, when your party is found culpable. Do you advocate that a person who violates the law in Alaska should be let off because someone else may be shown to have violated Illinois law?
The investigation into Gov. Palin's firing of Walt Monegan (a man she appointed to his office in the first place) led to Monegan's claim he was fired for not firing Stormtrooper Wooten. The investigation found that Monegan was rightly and justifiably fired for incompetence, with the Wooten leg of the story being a "likely contributing factor" - which unspun just shows Wooten not being fired as an example of the incompetence that got Monegan fired.
She was found to have violated the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act of the Ethics Act. Not because of firing Monegan, but because of her use of her office to try to get Wooten fired. Do you contend that she was cleared of any unethical conduct?
Psi Bond,
I doubt you would be shocked–––just like you ignore that she was found to have abused her power, you would ignore the exception it presented to your judgment and continue to believe what it pleases you to believe.
No, if Sarah Palin were a Democrat, I'd be shocked to see her do anything about Wooten besides protect him from civil liability.
We all know that if the Palin family and Stormtrooper Wooten were not feuding, Democrats would be making hay over how Sarah Palin allows her brother-in-law to drive patrol cars while intoxicated on his way to violate hunting and game laws he's charged with enforcing.
Why did she discriminate against Mike Wooten, her ex-brother-in-law? Why did she not hunt down and shoot all of the misbehaving troopers from a government helicopter? Or at least offer sportsmen a bounty of $150 for each severed forepaw of same?
Could you direct us towards any other Alaskan state troopers that have an equally or worse personnel file than Stormtrooper Wooten? His has eleven reprimands for fireable offenses and outright lawbreaking, not to mention attendance and tardiness issues as well as fraudulently filed workman's compensation claims?
I didn't think so.
Your idiotic leftist charge remains "Sarah Palin is unethical for trying to fire a rogue cop."
Your arctic temperament notwithstanding, maybe Wooten remains a trooper today because, in a state with a population of little more than 600,000, the manpower supply is not very broad for men or women wanting to become Alaska troopers. Perhaps disciplinary action suffices, since it isn’t reported that Wooten has gotten into subsequent trouble.
Yes, manpower is so short in Alaska that the services of Stormtrooper Wooten, despite categorically being unfit to wear the uniform of an Alaska state trooper, are indispensible.
Ducky's going to have to fight like hell to say something more dimwitted than you to regain prestige as Z's resident leftist.
Psi Bond,
Do you contend that she was cleared of any unethical conduct?
What part of my previous nine posts contending precisely that did you miss?
Leftists are slow, but damn.
beamish: Do you contend that she was cleared of any unethical conduct?
What part of my previous nine posts contending precisely that did you miss?
I wanted it on the record that you support Palin’s blatant lie.
Do you advocate that a person who violates the law in Alaska should be let off because someone else may be shown to have violated Illinois law?
No, if Sarah Palin were a Democrat, I'd be shocked to see her do anything about Wooten besides protect him from civil liability.
Most would be shocked to see the governor take an intense interest in the case of a particular trooper, who was her ex-brother-in-law.
We all know that if the Palin family and Stormtrooper Wooten were not feuding, Democrats would be making hay over how Sarah Palin allows her brother-in-law to drive patrol cars while intoxicated on his way to violate hunting and game laws he's charged with enforcing.
Somehow I got the impression you were most angry over the charge you made that he assaulted minors.
Could you direct us towards any other Alaskan state troopers that have an equally or worse personnel file than Stormtrooper Wooten? His has eleven reprimands for fireable offenses and outright lawbreaking, not to mention attendance and tardiness issues as well as fraudulently filed workman's compensation claims?
Are you saying that no other troopers have violations in their confidential personnel files?
I didn't think so.
I didn’t think so.
Your idiotic leftist charge remains "Sarah Palin is unethical for trying to fire a rogue cop."
I did not say that. She was found in violation of a state ethics law for using the power of the governor’s office to try to get a trooper dismissed.
Yes, manpower is so short in Alaska that the services of Stormtrooper Wooten, despite categorically being unfit to wear the uniform of an Alaska state trooper, are indispensible. .
I did not say indispensable. Perhaps difficult to replace.
Ducky's going to have to fight like hell to say something more dimwitted than you to regain prestige as Z's resident leftist.
No one can top you for taking dimwitted positions that, although you huff and puff, you cannot logically defend.
Psi Bond,
I wanted it on the record that you support Palin’s blatant lie.
I support Palin's assessment that she was cleared of the charge of improperly firing the incompetent Walt Monegan.
It was the Branchflower investigation's goal and purpose to find if the firing of Walt Monegan was improper. The Branchflower report clearly exonerates Sarah Palin of this bullshit charge.
As far as the cited Alaskan executive ethics statute Branchflower alleges Palin violated, if you probe deeper into the 128 page report and well beyond the range of leftists and others afflicted with a lack of reading comprehension skills, there are recommendations to the Alaskan state legislature to amend the ethics statutes in question to "clarify" them.
In other words, Branchflower knows his allegation wouldn't hold up in court until after the law is rewritten to make Palin in clear violation of them.
Branchflower doesn't have a case, and he knows it.
Do you advocate that a person who violates the law in Alaska should be let off because someone else may be shown to have violated Illinois law?
Do you advocate ex post facto lawmaking?
Psi Bond,
No one can top you for taking dimwitted positions that, although you huff and puff, you cannot logically defend.
One of the most endearing things about leftists is how their communal goal to convince people that all leftists are imbeciles prevents them from recognizing this goal was accomplished long ago.
It makes for great entertainment.
I wanted it on the record that you support Palin’s blatant lie.
I support Palin's assessment that she was cleared of the charge of improperly firing the incompetent Walt Monegan.
Palin's assessment is a brazen mendacious spin. She was not cleared of abuse of her power.
It was the Branchflower investigation's goal and purpose to find if the firing of Walt Monegan was improper. The Branchflower report clearly exonerates Sarah Palin of this bullshit charge.
"The contract provides that I [Stephen Branchflower], as the Consultant of the Council, shall provide legal services to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."
As far as the cited Alaskan executive ethics statute Branchflower alleges Palin violated, if you probe deeper into the 128 page report and well beyond the range of leftists and others afflicted with a lack of reading comprehension skills, there are recommendations to the Alaskan state legislature to amend the ethics statutes in question to "clarify" them.
Apparently, you can't read. There are 263 pages in the public portion of the report.
If you read the report's recommendations that you refer to, you will find that they do not concern AS 39.52.110(a), which she was found to have violated. They concern AS 23.30.107(b)(l) (about access to confidential medical records of state employees) and AS 39.25.080 (about victims’ rights).
In other words, Branchflower knows his allegation wouldn't hold up in court until after the law is rewritten to make Palin in clear violation of them.
Branchflower says no such thing. He unambiguously states at the beginning that she was in violation of the Alaska ethics stature. Whether there is a prosecutable court case is not his concern as the state's appointed investigator.
Branchflower doesn't have a case, and he knows it.
Branchflower charter was to investigate "the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch."
Do you advocate that a person who violates the law in Alaska should be let off because someone else may be shown to have violated Illinois law?
Do you advocate ex post facto lawmaking?
Ex post facto lawmaking is not called for. She violated the State Executive Branch Ethics Act. No modification to the Ethics Act is necessary nor was any proposed.
Answer the question: Do you advocate that a person who violates the law in Alaska should be let off because someone else may be shown to have violated Illinois law?
beamish: One of the most endearing things about leftists is how their communal goal to convince people that all leftists are imbeciles prevents them from recognizing this goal was accomplished long ago.
Someone like you who maintains that Article I of the Constitution which defines the role of the Vice-President has nothing to say about the Vice-President, that Timothy McVeigh was a registered Democrat, that liberals did not inspire civil rights reform, that Obama is not a serious candidate, that a report that determined Palin to be in violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act clears her thereby of unethical activity, and that politically serious persons whom you like to call 'leftists' seek to convince others that they are imbeciles–––that person has no claim to the attention of rational people except as a joker.
Psi Bond,
Answer the question: Do you advocate that a person who violates the law in Alaska should be let off because someone else may be shown to have violated Illinois law?
Your question is irrelevant.
Branchflower recommends legislative "clarifications" to the Alaska state legislature because the laws, as written, do not assist in producing a prosecutable case.
The Branchflower report makes no recommendation for indictments to be filed.
The Branchflower report cleared Sarah Palin of any wrongdoing.
Eat it.
Answer the question: Do you advocate that a person who violates the law in Alaska should be let off because someone else may be shown to have violated Illinois law?
Your question is irrelevant.
In other words, you cannot answer this yes-or-no question honestly. The defense of Palin that you gave, which depends on alleged action of Obama, is irrelevant. An Alaska governor’s abuse of power is not cleared by the unrelated alleged actions of a person in Illinois.
Branchflower recommends legislative "clarifications" to the Alaska state legislature because the laws, as written, do not assist in producing a prosecutable case.
You are shoving words into his mouth. He does not say that. The two statutes he recommends the legislature consider amending have nothing to with the ethics statute, of which he found Palin in violation. Branchflower says the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is “a well defined law”. You cannot make up facts to suit you. It’s not legitimate rational argument.
The Branchflower report makes no recommendation for indictments to be filed.
That is because it is not in his purview to do so. He found an abuse of power. The rest is up to the state legislature and the airlifted team of Palin-McCain campaign operatives.
The Branchflower report cleared Sarah Palin of any wrongdoing.
The Branchflower report did not clear Sarah Palin of abuse of power.
Eat it.
Don’t be insulted, beamish–––I’m squeamish.
There’s a norm of civil conduct here–––you don’t meet it
Psi Bond,
In other words, you cannot answer this yes-or-no question honestly. The defense of Palin that you gave, which depends on alleged action of Obama, is irrelevant. An Alaska governor’s abuse of power is not cleared by the unrelated alleged actions of a person in Illinois.
My defense of Sarah Palin has nothing to do with criminals in Illinois. You've already convinced us you lack reading comprehension skills.
Let's move on.
You are shoving words into his mouth. He does not say that. The two statutes he recommends the legislature consider amending have nothing to with the ethics statute, of which he found Palin in violation. Branchflower says the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is “a well defined law”. You cannot make up facts to suit you. It’s not legitimate rational argument.
You're a leftist. You know as much about rational arguments as doorknobs know about astrophysics.
The case Branchflower attempts to make for Sarah Palin's alleged violation of executive ethics statutes hinges on a re-interpretation - "recommended clarifications" - of those other statutes.
He couldn't catch Sarah Palin's hand in the trap, so he wants to re-define the trap.
No dice.
Eat it.
In other words, you cannot answer this yes-or-no question honestly. The defense of Palin that you gave, which depends on alleged action of Obama, is irrelevant. An Alaska governor’s abuse of power is not cleared by the unrelated alleged actions of a person in Illinois.
My defense of Sarah Palin has nothing to do with criminals in Illinois. You've already convinced us you lack reading comprehension skills.
“Yes. We all know Sarah Palin is worse than a candidate once paid by a domestic terrorist to dole out millions of dollars to leftist organizations known mostly for voter registration fraud.”
Let's move on.
Do you deny posting that? Do you feel that the disputed connection between Obama and the fraud of some employees hired by ACORN in registering voters enables Republican governors to violate the public trust?
You are shoving words into his mouth. He does not say that. The two statutes he recommends the legislature consider amending have nothing to with the ethics statute, of which he found Palin in violation. Branchflower says the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act is “a well defined law”. You cannot make up facts to suit you. It’s not legitimate rational argument.
You're a leftist. You know as much about rational arguments as doorknobs know about astrophysics.
You’re a calumniating clown. You show as much understanding of Aristotelian logic as the wood that becomes a doorpost.
The case Branchflower attempts to make for Sarah Palin's alleged violation of executive ethics statutes hinges on a re-interpretation - "recommended clarifications" - of those other statutes.
No clarification was needed or recommended to determine that Palin abused her power in terms of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. The report enumerated the standards specified in the Act in order to explain the reasons for its finding. It did nor explain or suggest a reason for modifying the ethics statute, which it said was “well defined”.
He couldn't catch Sarah Palin's hand in the trap, so he wants to re-define the trap.
No re-definition was required to determine that Palin was in fact in violation of the ethics statute. Suggested amendments applied only to other Alaska statutes concerning access to state employees’ medical records and concerning victims’ rights.
No dice.
Reading skills suffice.
Eat it.
I’m squeamish, beamish. No offense intended.
Post a Comment