In the first recorded case of political pre-cognition, Sarah Palin is refusing to cooperate in the Troopergate case on the grounds that Obama supporters in the Alaska Legislature are behind the investigation, which began on a bipartisan basis in July, two months before John McCain picked her as his running mate.
The less-than-momentous question of whether the Governor fired the commissioner who refused to fire her former brother-in-law is becoming a more important reflection of how the Vice-Presidential candidate deals with opposition.
There is a touch of Nixonian stonewalling, combined with Joe McCarthy-like smearing of the opposition, in her backers' insistence on turning an accusation of her misbehavior into attacks on those who are trying to get at the truth about what she did or didn't do.
A McCain spokesman said today that Palin will not cooperate with "that investigation so long as it remained tainted and run by partisan individuals who have a predetermined conclusion."
The fascinating question is how and why those nefarious Obama supporters decided to start mistreating her last summer.
I reckon it would have been in her political interest to give Wooten a free pass, even though he tasered a 10 year old stepson and was drunk on patrol. I could care less if she DID pressure the police commissioner to fire Wooten. The man needed to be fired in his own right. I guess that he's the governor's ex-brother in-law is supposed to tie the governor's hands?
ReplyDeleteI lived overseas during the Bush administration. People kept asking my how did we elect him twice?
ReplyDeleteThey asked me are the American people that stupid? As an American representative, what could I say?
Now we have McCain-Palin and is it possible for us to do this 3 times in a row? Do we need another White House that spends more time trying to spin what they did wrong instead of doing what is right in the first place? Our economy is in the tank, that should be enough to fire those that have been in charge the last 8 years. McCain might not have done all of this, but his party did. And that should be enough to send a clear message that you have had your chance. It is time to try something else.
Im one of the lucky American's because my children have acess to free healthcare, I dont have to pay for college education because it is free, my property value hasnt been hurt during the credit crunch and I have a high quality of life. Unfortunately, I have to live in Norway to enjoy these luxuries my fellow Americans dont have.
We need a government for us not for the few. I dont care for the small town governer because small towns breed small minds. Our country is too big, too many differences to be led by people with small agenda's. You talk about values, you talk about openness, you talk about change but nothing you have done leads me to believe that you are for these things. I could go one but I think I have made my points!
Palin wants to "reform" and "clean up" Washington and she won't even participate in her own ethics investigation! Talk about calling the kettle black!!! Obama better hit a home run on this one. According to the article the investigation could result in CRIMINAL CHARGES. Just what the country needs, VP in JAIL! This has to be one of the sleeziest looking stories I've heard in a LONG time. There is absolutely NOTHING ethical about Sarah Palin! I sure hope people see right through THAT conspiracy theory about Democratic sabotage. I guess that's what she calls it when SHE is being investigated right? What a joke!
ReplyDeleteGuilty or innocent the governor should cooperate with the investigation. By refusing to do so she reinforces the appearance of guilt. We have spent the last 8 years having investigations thwarted by a president who routinely tied the hands of those doing the investigating. Since when did being a president or nominee mean you get to walk on questions of ethics or legality? If Mrs. Palin truly has a commitment to reform and change, then let her start in her own backyard.
ReplyDeletegoogleads:
ReplyDeleteShow me the proof that he was drunk on patrol? What? There is none? Oh ok..so that explains why he still has his job after all this time. And he explained the tazing incident and admitted it was in bad judgement.
In the meantime, if Palin wants to be a reformer, perhaps she can start by reforming herself before considering D.C. Her true colors are showing and this Sarah love fest will soon subside.
OBAMA/BIDEN '08
Googleads,
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is saying the guy didn't deserve to be fired and more.
The point is that in typical Republican fashion, Palin was so sure of her rightness that the thought she could sidestep due process and when one of her underlings told her she couldn't, she fired him instead.
I don't blame her at all for wanting Wooten gone - the issue is her assumption that she can act above the law when she feels like it.
Who does this remind us of?
rrice
ReplyDeletesince i live in sweden ive met many americans like you. Its fun too see that the second the discussion turns to politics or even world events americans throw their hands in the air and yells " I didnt vote for Bush".
Last time i saw that was in the 80-s but then it was people from the eastern bloc expressing the same sentiment of their governments... :)
"Last time i saw that was in the 80-s but then it was people from the eastern bloc expressing the same sentiment of their governments... :)"
ReplyDeleteI think that should be ;)
We know what happened to those governments, and history does tend to repeat.
Not only is the panel bi-partisan, it actually has a majority of Republicans (3 R's, 2 D's) so it doesn't exactly sound like it's been "hijacked" by Obama's forces to me....
ReplyDelete"I could care less if she DID pressure the police commissioner to fire Wooten. The man needed to be fired in his own right. " Except that as Monegan pointed out, these events happened several years before Palin wanted Wooten canned. In other words, she hadn't done anything about this while he was her brother-in-law, only when he was getting divorced from her sister did this have nay merit. Which is exactly what Monegan asked her, why at this late date? And the answer is, there was a custody battle going on. Get your head out of your butt, googleads.
ReplyDeleteAnd one of the Republicans (who are in the majority on the investigative commission agreed to the surpoenaes!
ReplyDeleteAnd actually he was using a test taser (with clips) and the boy asked him to do it. Stupid? Sure! Criminal? Hardly.
ReplyDelete