Re: The Sarah Palin corner of the Sandbox!

**Rincewind** · 10-11-2008, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I have read it

Getting busy on a Friday night, eh?

Looks to me like the the important parts are getting out through the media filter. Like the first sentence on page 8 or in other words

Originally Posted by The Report

Finding Number One

For the reason explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sara 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 office is a violation of that trust."

I guess the abuse of power part is hard to miss right there as finding number one.

Hard to miss? Or should I say easy to overlook?

**Switchcraft** · 10-11-2008, 01:43 AM

And then he immediately contradicts his opinion that she violated that law by stating she violated no law. Just like on page 67 he expresses his opinion that nobody in her family had a legitimate reason to be scared of the trooper that threatened their lives and has yet to be charged with any of the crimes to which he has confessed.

Again, maybe if you would read the entire document, instead of the opinion section, you might be able to come to your own conclusion about which of the contradictory opinions he expresses have any factual foundation.

**marstein** · 10-11-2008, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Just like on page 67 he expresses his opinion that nobody in her family had a legitimate reason to be scared of the trooper that threatened their lives and has yet to be charged with any of the crimes to which he has confessed.

I guess the Maverick has her own ways of preserving law and order. And if her will isn't heeded heads roll. Next she'll shoot someone, but for a VP that seems to be the thing to do.

**Switchcraft** · 10-11-2008, 03:22 AM

Yes, God forbid the boss have the power to fire an employee.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-11-2008, 12:15 PM

The personality I have seen her display leads me to believe that she did allow her personal desires/emotions to drive her actions.

Is this a big deal? In Alaska probably not. As the VP of the US? A slightly bigger deal. But you also have to consider that she would be in a different position so might behave differently.

I don't think this is a big deal on it's own. She has many more flaws to be concerned about. This is just one more in my opinion.

**TheFatKidDeath** · 10-11-2008, 03:23 PM

McCain campaign has bigger worries than Palin's latest headline. He's got a significant base of supporters who can't even get basic facts correct:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c-Ijky95dc[/media]

**Switchcraft** · 10-11-2008, 04:16 PM

Biden can't get basic facts correct. Why should anyone be worrying about McCain's supporters?

**TheFatKidDeath** · 10-11-2008, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Biden can't get basic facts correct. Why should anyone be worrying about McCain's supporters?

I'll take my answer over to the McCain thread.

**Kerostasis** · 10-12-2008, 10:20 PM

Thats an amusing article. For example:

Wooten had been in hot water before Palin became governor over allegations that he illegally shot a moose, drank beer in a patrol car and used a Taser on his stepson. The Palins said they feared for their family's safety after Wooten made threats against them.

**Addict** · 10-13-2008, 02:38 AM

I did not read all 263 pages. I did read up to the findings section(up to page 8), and the explenation for finding one(pgs 48 to 68).

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

And then he immediately contradicts his opinion that she violated that law by stating she violated no law.

I don't think the findings are contradictary, they are talking about two different things. Finding one finds she was guilty of violating the ethics law with regards to the pressure she/Todd put on Monegan to fire Wootan. Finding two says she is NOT guilty of violating ethics laws for firing Monegan himself.

Two seperate acts, involving the firing/potential firings of two different people.

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Just like on page 67 he expresses his opinion that nobody in her family had a legitimate reason to be scared of the trooper that threatened their lives and has yet to be charged with any of the crimes to which he has confessed.

I don't understand this comment. What does this contradict?

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Again, maybe if you would read the entire document, instead of the opinion section, you might be able to come to your own conclusion about which of the contradictory opinions he expresses have any factual foundation.

As I stated in my opening, I did not read the entire article. However, the section that explains finding one contains a large list of excerpts from testimony that seem to me to make it clear that She/Todd used the position or the office of Governer of Alaska to apply pressure to try and get Wootan fired because of a personal interest in the case. According to the laws of Alaska, that is illegal.

My only real question about this is the idea that the actions of Todd and others of her family are her responsibility. So above, I said "she/Todd". As long as you assume they are inseperable, I understand the findings. I'm not sure they should be inseperable. Is she really responsible for that? I think to prove that, they'd have had to prove more that she had knowledge of her husbands actions and took no action to stop it. I guess the investigator DID feel that she indeed had knowledge, and specifically chose to not act, as the investigor specifically picks out the "or by inaction" part of the ethics law.

**Switchcraft** · 10-13-2008, 02:52 AM

I worded that sentence about page 67 poorly. My comment was meant to illustrate that this was someone's opinion, and that it is his opinion that nobody in her family had any legitimate reason to be scared of the armed criminal who has threatened them.

**ScratchMonkey** · 10-13-2008, 04:03 AM

Mad Dog Palin

The scariest thing about John McCain's running mate isn't how unqualified she is - it's what her candidacy says about America

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics.../mad_dog_palin

**Switchcraft** · 10-13-2008, 04:06 AM

The scariest thing about Obama isn't how unqualified he is. It's what his candidacy says about America.

**ScratchMonkey** · 10-13-2008, 04:10 AM

I just did a site search at Rolling Stone for Obama and couldn't find anything critical of him there. So their bias is pretty clear. (I consider both sides of the aisle equally stinky.)

**snooggums** · 10-13-2008, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

The scariest thing about Obama isn't how unqualified he is. It's what his candidacy says about America.

That people prefer a black person who isn't afraid of change?

Thread Tools

Display