« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
French: Trooper-Gate Report Will Come Out on Schedule
Despite Republican stonewalling, the Alaska legislature will release its report on Trooper-Gate on time, Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, said today. The report is scheduled to be completed October 10th.
None of the subpoenaed witnesses showed up to testify at a legislative hearing today. The McCain-Palin campaign, which has challenged the legitimacy of the investigation, had been actively working to ensure that the witnesses did not testify.
Steven Branchflower, the independent investigator conducting the probe, has already spoken with several witnesses. But it remains to be seen whether his report will be able to reach any definite conclusions without access to testimony by key players like the Palins and several top gubernatorial aides.
Josh
Zachary
It would be funny as hell if after all the hard work by McTusella and co. the report still came out just before the election. Even if it only says 'we could reach no conclussion because of obstruction' it will bring this issue back to the fore in voters minds.
Sweet!
September 19, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup!
September 19, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody still needs to tell me how: [a] a state attorney general can simply ORDER state employees not to honor subpoeneas, legally; [b] on what grounds, exactly, that a First Dude can refuse one.
The Bush administration always snidely claimned "executive privilege"... what the devil is Todd's legal rationale? "I won the Iron Dog competition, and I stick my thing in the governor"?
This can't stand. Someone in Alaska needs to call in the not-fired trooper, who needs to show up at these peoples' houses with handcuffs and a paddy wagon.
September 20, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good question. Who actually is subject to a subpoenea? Just ordinary citizens without any connections to power? To all those who claim to be "strict constitutional constructuralists" I have to wonder: Do you think this is what the founding fathers had in mind?
September 20, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The so called subpoenas were issued by the President of the Senate NOT A COURT OF LAW for persons to testify before THE COMMITTEE.
Unfortunately that isn't what is happening but there is a lot of confusion from people who just hear the word 'subpoena' and automatically think this is a COURT. It isn't.
And the subpoenas are only good for the person to testify BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE. Testifying before a 'hired investigator' is not legal.
We want the truth on this BUT not from a 'pet investigator' and with illegally issued subpoenas. A 'private investigator' cannot be given the right to closed door interviews. The law says subpoenas can be issued for persons to testify BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, not before the investigator.
The newspapers haven't been real accurate about a lot of things.
September 21, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me try and explain:
Congress, Federal or State, has subpoena power as do courts. The subpoena are fully "legal" and to refuse a Congressional subpoena is to be "in contempt" and suffer the punishment. That's what subpoena literally translates to in Latin: "under punishment." That is certainly the duty of law enforcement to uphold.
The reason is straightforward:
Courts must enforce laws; that requires cooperation and investigation to inform the Court; therefore the Court has the power to compel cooperation subpoena.
Congress must write laws; that requires cooperation and investigation to inform Congress; therefore Congress has the power to compel cooperation subpoena.
This precedent of subpoena power for investigative purpose, both by courts and lawmakers, goes back centuries and is foundational in Common Law, American Jurisprudence, and Western Culture.
October 4, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The investigator already said that he didn't think the report would be favorable to Palin, based upon his investigation already conducted. The only new investigation attempts were to take witness' statements that, presumably, would have been favorable to her. Now the report will read, "Witnesses for Palin were subpoenaed, but refused to testify."
September 19, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
DAME mcSHAME!
September 19, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or Clueless Evangelista of Way Silly
September 19, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's refrain from mocking the city name. Many of those folks there are supporting the Truth!
September 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Congressguy from Alaska was on Maddow tonight. He pointed out that the Alaska AG (which is a whole other can of worms) had already interviewed most of the no-shows, and Branchflower has their statements.
Thus, as many point out, it just makes for a much deeper hole. Thankfully, it appears they are not nearly done digging.
September 20, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I wonder if any other penalty comes with a contempt citation in Alaska. Could be poison there, politically.
September 20, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
There are already far too many instances in this country of codifying as acceptable the defiance of a subpoena.
Unless YOU were planning to duck a few yourself, and were expecting to get off scot-free, this issue fuckin' DWARFS Sen. French's getting comments from Alaska politicos.
September 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that not one of the subpoenaed witnesses had the integrity to give the GOP the finger and show up for the hearing shows they're a bunch of spineless filth. They're all allowing the McCain campaign to gamble their integrity away on the election.
This action needs a new website, or portion of something like Wikileaks, that tracks these kinds of morally challenged lackeys.
Not that Republicans understand irony, but if Presidnet Clinton was a Republican, he would have given the Arkansas civil court the finger and said "Executive Privledge" until his second term ran out. There never would have been any hearings or impeachment... or perhaps that's exactly what they do understand. Ruin the country, but save your own ass.
September 19, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the real world, if you are subpoenaed to appear in court and don't show up, a warrant is issued for your arrest. It should certainly apply in this situation (just as it should for what's going on in D.C.) Under the Constitution, they have the right to plead the Fifth if they don't want to testify. Doing so, of course, implies a possible implication in the crime or whatever. However...not showing up at all is worse. If somehow they actually believe this makes them look "innocent," they are completely deranged. If, on the other hand, it's a simple demonstration of their belief that they are above the law, it's well past time for a slap down. Enough already!!
September 19, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's the little matter of charging them with contempt first, but otherwise, yeah.
September 20, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator French could you please give some of the more spineless Democrats such as Pelosi, Conyers and Reid some pointers in how to not cave when confronted by bullies...? Maybe Senator French for Attorney General....?
September 19, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The report will be referred to the AK A.G. and the USA A.G. for prosectution . . . And the AK legistlature will note their AK Constitutional duty to remove her but may not do anything about it . . . And if the corporate-owned voting machines & RNC caging ops don't give the election to McCain . . . Something may happen in 2009 . . . Otherwise nothing will ever happen and I will have moved to Canada or Israel or Dubai or . . .
September 19, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't go to Dubai, they harbor the likes of Michael Jackson and Halliburton ops.
September 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shouldn't be surprised if the statute of limitations for criminal contempt reaches past January 20...
September 19, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alaska is a joke of state.
Alaska Government is just a part-time sham. They're only in session 90 calendar days in a year and it's the smallest of all 50 states. Heck, it's not much bigger than some college campus governments.
It's just an oil welfare state with a long history of corruption. It's all they know.
What's her name the Governor has only 117k votes total in her whole life. Big whoop.
Naive to think that they can get anything intelligent accomplished up there. They never have before.
September 19, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your opinion.
Unfortunately you missed part of the story.
SARAH was the one standing up to the goons.
Welfare State? Get real. I WORK FOR MY MONEY as do most Alaskans.
September 21, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's nonsense to call the sate a joke because people fell out of clown cars to run the government.
May as well say the same about the country, then.
The nation isn't Cheney, but he yanks our chains for the time being. He and his syndicate pretend like the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution are fiction, but they aren't.
The principles are what it's all about, isn't it, whether they are ignored or not.
One thing I WON;T knock the place for is yanking their share out of big oil. Every state that has a derrick should do the same.
September 21, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go ahead call "sate" a joke. The state, no.
September 22, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to beat up on Alaska (love your salmon guys!) but to be honest here:
Alaska technically is a subsidized state or "welfare" state. Alaska collects far more Federal Tax Revenue than it pays in.
It's correct to say Alaska doesn't really qualify as a developed economy or have a developed culture in the Western sense. Inuit culture is another matter. Alaska has natural resources including the beauty of the land itself. There's fishing, oil, and tourism.
Education levels in Alaska are some of the lowest in the US.
Median income is bolstered by business owners and corporate executives but Alaska has enormous wealth disparity. Which is typical of resource exploitation economies such as those of the Middle East, with stark contrast between workers and owners, haves and have nots.
Alaska's population ranks 47th, despite it being the largest state geographically. It has the lowest population density in the US and one of the lowest in the world.
Alaska has more in common with Puerto Rico than CA, NY, TX, the New England region, South West region, Midwest Region, etc. Other regions of the US have the diversity and resources (both technological and cultural) to exist as independent nations with whole economies and cultures, if need be.
Which is fine. I'm not knocking hard work or tourism.
But the lack of other perspectives or experience in Alaska does imbalance politics and produce a rather narrow monoculture. Culturally, it's something of a backwater. Alaskans especially tend to imagine a frontier independence, when in reality they're wholly dependent on the lower 48 for everything from food to defense to science.
Not to generalize ALL Alaskans, but many. (Native Alaskan culture is another matter.)
October 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
States with one party government tend to be corrupt. States where that one party government is republican are almost always corrupt. Alaska has a one party government - republican.
I have lived in a few towns in my life, and most were bigger than Wasilla, if not bigger than the whole state, as far as population goes. None of the mayors I can recall could have lasted a week as a president of the USA. Few governors could do that. Bush managed by not being the president in fact, just in name. Cheney and his staff were the actual president for most of the past 8 years.
If McPOW is elected he also will be an in name only president, lacking the temperament, the knowledge and most especially the interest to be an actual president. Palin couldn't possible do a Cheney and be actual president. So, we would have a government by an unknown staffer.
Possibly by then we will also have no operating financial system either, and little operative military. Look for that kid who sells weapons to foreign governments from his parents home in Florida to be actual president, unless the Blackwater company can be persuaded to take on the job on a no-bid contract.
September 19, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've become the stuff of a screen-play. Circus Maximus - as govt.
September 19, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great analysis. She's betting heavily on a presidential win to save her from further scrutiny. But when they lose ... "SARAH! You've got some 'splaining to do!"
September 19, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am so glad as an Alaskan that our state legislators (both Democrats & Republicans) are hanging tough & NOT letting the McCain/Rove/Bush/Palin machine steamroll over this investigation. Call off the dogs & let them do their jobs.
September 20, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you patriots of Alaska!
September 20, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She sure doesn't speak for THIS ALASKAN WOMAN.
An illegal subpoena is still illegal, no matter what spin you put on it.
Any results are TAINTED. What happened to fairness? Is that only for democrats that toe the party line?
Monegan, French, AND THE INVESTIGATOR have all known each other for years. The investigators WIFE WORKED FOR MONEGAN.
Come on folks. Does this sound 'neutral'? Not to me.
No matter how honest the report is, there will be problems because of the taint of hypocrisy. French and Branchflower need to recuse themselves, as being too close to Monegan.
September 21, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the subpoenas are illegal, why? Just saying something doesn't make it so.
September 21, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the subpoenas are illegal, why? Just saying something doesn't make it so.
September 21, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The subpoena aren't "illegal." palmerbuyer is clueless.
October 4, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Checkers Speech, Part Deux
Look out, Dems. Beware of the reincarnation of the Checkers Speech.
Troopergate is collapsing around her. The ABC revelation may be the final straw that exposes her evolving explanations for the inconvenient truth of Monegan.
Suddenly, her public appearances are cancelled. Why? The better she might consult with her handlers and craft the perfect prime time appearance.
Consider this. She was at her best in front of an adoring audience reading from a teleprompter and wrinkling her nose. No reporters. No pesky questions delving beyond a bumper sticker answer.
Why not trot her out and confess to seeking to fire Wooten. He is evil. She is like any momma – ANY MOMMA – trying to protect her family with any rudimentary weapons at her disposal. No tears, but a hockey mom’s grit. In her case, though, the rudimentary weapons happened to be the State of Alaska. (Imagine what she could do with the IRS, or the FBI, or the CIA.)
An early meme warned Dems not to count too much on Troopergate. The idea at that time was the whole affair would not amount to much. As is often the case, the reverse is true. It is damaging. But in true Nixonian (and Rovian) fashion, the reverse can be leveraged to spectacular advantage. Eisenhower kept Nixon as a running mate, and they went on to win.
Her handlers will be rolling the dice, to be sure. But what does MCain have to lose? Deregulation is strangling him. What better gambit than let her play the People Magazine mega-mom?
September 20, 2008 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That strategy might work to better effect if the report were coming out just before the election. But, the timing of it gives plenty of time for discussion of the issues - which involve rule of law and accountability, and the extent to which Palin believes she is above it all. Is that a quality we want in the White House? To what extent has that way of thinking been a problem for us in the last 8 years?
September 20, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The McCain campaign is using the script of "Convict Me" as their strategy road map. Good movie - bad strategy.
September 20, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
do you mean "Find Me Guilty"
with Vin Diesel ???
good flik
September 20, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know you're in Wasilla when you let your 12 year old smoke at the dinner table.
In front of her daughter.
September 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-in-bunny-ears.html
Saturday, September 20, 2008
McCain In Bunny Ears
Incidentally, has anyone noticed how appropriate McCain would look in bunny ears?
Now, seriously. I want you to picture him with the bunny ears on.
One ear drooping, slightly grandpa-ish, meshing ever-so-well with that frustrated grimace.
Doesn't that look just right?
Photoshops of the above are welcome and will be posted liberally (no pun intended. Send to:
headofstateblog@yahoo.com
Your name or handle, should you desire, will be posted with your contribution.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/mccain-in-bunny-ears.html
September 20, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin is like any moma.
She is the mother of a growing family and that is a full time job. She should not try to be the mother to her family and the Vice President at the same time. The Vice President of the United States is more than a full time job.
The voters should reject her for this reason.
The voters should reject John McCain because he nominated her for the job of Vice President while she has a full time job being mother to her family.
Our Vice President needs to work full time to help our President succeed in office.
September 20, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the post "Checkers - Part Deux": I don't think the two situations are quite the same. Nixon was attempting to clear himself of the "taint" of association with some acquaintances/political advisors, who were alleged to be influence peddlars. His honesty, at that time, was not in question.
Palin is not attempting to put distance between herself and some "overzealous" advisors. She is accused of doing exactly what Nixon was impeached for in 1973 - abuse of power for personal ends.
Palin is accused of illegally using her powers as governor in carrying out a vendetta against her ex-brother-in-law.
She may very well try to pull off some speech about how she was merely trying to "protect" a member of her family, but in doing so she will only emphasize her misuse of power. Especially as the only ones who have been chastised by the judge in the divorce case are the Gov. of Alaska and the "First Dude" (I have to go wash my hands after typing those last two words).
September 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
When are her tax returns going to come out?
On a related topic, it appears she's going to be pampered in the debates, per the NY Times. She claims she's ready to be President, but apparently is not quite ready to debate! This is really quite funny - Now, how would she deal with Putin? Before you know it, he could be knocking on her front door with the Russian army right behind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?hp
"At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.
McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive."
September 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Info regarding the real reason Monegan was fired.
September 20, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those asking how the subpoenas can be ignored you must understand the Alaska Constitution and Alaska State Statutes. They do differ from other states.
While it is legal for Ms. Green to sign and issue subpoenas it is not legal to subpoena individuals to testify behind closed doors with an investigator. 


Sec. 24.25.010. Issuance and form of subpoena.


(a) A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before either house of the legislature may be issued by the president or the speaker.



(b) A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before a standing or special committee of the legislature may be issued by the chairman of a committee when authorized to do so by a majority of the membership of the committee and with the concurrence of the president or the speaker, or with the concurrence of the house or the senate.



(c) A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness before an interim committee established by either house of the legislature, or by both, may be issued by the chairman of a committee when authorized to do so by a majority of the membership of the committee and with the concurrence of the president or the speaker.



The judicial council made a huge blunder of law and they are now paying for it. Both Republicans and Democrats screwed this up and we Alaskan's suffer.


What I have feared is coming true. A report will be released by a certain date, regardless of details, and Alaskans will not have the truth. 


This process is broken right now and continuing forward, regardless of the outcome, has too many questions involved to consider it valid.
Senator French could have fixed this today but he decide to keep up the partisan split instead of doing what is right for Alaskans to learn the facts and truth.
September 20, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately French doesn't have the cojones to say he was WRONG and got led down the garden path by Lyda Green and her cronies. (Just because you are a republican in Alaska does not mean you support our Governor -- especially if a subpoena from FEDERAL COURT has your name on it.)
The republican party in Alaska is broken. Sarah was the only one with the cojones to stand up to them -- and call them on some of the trash deals they were doing. So now they have decided to do a 'pay back' by blowing this all out of proportion.
They've been blowing smoke for so long that they are beginning to believe their own press.
As an Alaskan citizen I have the RIGHT to complain if the State Troopers are 'protecting' bad cops. As our Governor, I wouldn't expect any less from her. Most of the posters are missing the point. When we PROTECT the Cop instead of the CITIZENS -- and then when someone complains SKEWER HER, the WRONG PEOPLE are in charge.
Monegan has started something he can't stop now. And the truth about HIS sordid little foray into wife abuse has come to light too.
Be careful what you wish for Walt; you might get it.
Bottom line? The Governor has the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to have supporting players in her cabinet. When you have a rogue commissioner, for WHATEVER reason, she doesn't have to explain if she moves him to another position. The press keeps saying 'she fired him'; WRONG - he quit because the job she wanted to move him to 'wasn't good enough' -- although it PAID THE SAME as the one he had.
We want the truth on this BUT not from a 'pet investigator' and illegally issued subpoenas. French needs to step up to the plate and admit he didn't understand the law -- that a 'private investigator' cannot be given the right to closed door interviews. The law says subpoenas can be issued for persons to testify BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, not before the investigator.
Lyda Green doesn't care if she destroys the state to get back at Sarah for not naming Lyda 'queen' as president of the senate -- and following her orders. Lyda is retiring this year but couldn't wait to get her teeth into Sarah. If Sarah is a pitbull, Lyda is a snake.
September 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have anything that backs up what you said? The last I heard was that the position had a salary $10,000 less than the one he was fired from. Also, if he didn't get fired, why is this investigation of Palin's "abuse of power" going on? Surely a person is either fired or not, and if he wasn't, then why investigate at all? I haven't even heard Ms Sarah call the guy a "rogue commissioner."
You seem to have a pretty subjective way of looking at this; this is only one example:
Just curious, does the McCain campaign pay well?
September 21, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your interest.
The truth has been 'interpreted' by so many different news outlets, that accuracy has gone by the wayside. Each time the story is repeated it changes a wee bit, kind of like the old 'telephone game' we played as kids.
The FIRST stories on this had Monegan getting a LATERAL TRANSFER, which he declined. These stories also had Monegan stating that he had NOT been pressured.
And NO I do not work for McCains campaign. I'm not a republican. I'm just an Alaskan who has seen this grow into something way out of proportion, giving motives to people who weren't even involved, and making it into some sort of devious conspiracy.
There are several people pushing this inquiry who are still mad at Sarah because she stood up to the oil companies and didn't let the pet projects go thru. Lyda Green, Charlie Huggins, Ben Stevens (Teddy's baby boy), Kott, and a few others too numerous to name.
Bottom line: Monagan, French, and Branchflower are friends and the last two should not be doing the investigating. They might be considered prejudiced in favor of Monagan - and that means ANY CONCLUSIONS are tainted.
Just sayin', but shouldn't the investigation be impartial??
September 21, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No informed individual claims that Palin didn't have the right to hire and fire arbitrarily. Palin made the claim that this was NOT the case, however. It was poor performance, it was Monegan going behind her back, it was reason number 3, and reason number 4. She hasn't once said "Because I could," anymore than she's said "I supported the Bridge to Nowhere even after it became the flag bearer for outrageous beltway pork, and then I kept the federal money that had already been allocated to the state and used those millions for other things instead."
Do you not see that THIS is crux of the magillah?
Also, "reformers" who enter office only to commit many of the same cloak and dagger behaviors as their predecessors can hardly expect much credibility.
Sarah (as you refer to her, is she an old chum? her AG practiced in Mat-Su didn't he?...in that convenient location for the State Fair...) is a disappointment on the honest and transparent business she promised.
September 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your interest.
1. The bridge to nowhere funding was an earmark that could not be returned. The first estimates for the cost were reasonable; the next ones were out of line, which is the reason the state backed off. The whole story has not come out.
2. I've met Sarah through the years but don't 'know' her.
3. I 'can see the fairgrounds' from my house but I've never met Talis. (I go every ten years in case they have something new; usually they don't.)
4. I agree that we need some answers, but we need to know that the answers that are presented are accurate and truthful, not 'slanted'.
BTW, I vote independent. I'm voting for Mark Begich for Senator (and yes I do know him) because he is a consensus builder and I trust him.
Sarah, except for this Monagan fiasco, hasn't done anything yet to make me distrust her. Lyda Green HAS though.
Alaska is a 'small town' where everybody knows everybody -- or of them. And we take our politics and our politicians seriously. States with larger populations don't have the opportunity to meet and greet like we do.
September 21, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your state is getting a bad name in this whole thing, you know. I do hate to say this, but people are starting to wonder what the hell is going on up there. "The Governor" (kindly known also by several other monikers on this site), so far has done an "uneven" job of promoting your image.
September 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"1. The bridge to nowhere funding was an earmark that could not be returned. The first estimates for the cost were reasonable; the next ones were out of line, which is the reason the state backed off. The whole story has not come out."
Are you purposefully avoiding my point? You may not have noticed from my comments, but I am hardly unfamiliar with Alaska or it's politics.
I illustrated that the issue is not whether Palin COULD fire Monegan arbitrarily, or that the funds for the Bridge COULD be kept (I take issue with you on whether or not earmark allocations CAN BE returned, but that's another matter...). And don't tell me what I don't know about the shifting state share in the financing or the lack of guaranteed natural gas suppliers, or how big oil already situated on the slope tried to dictate terms, etc. I'm well aware of the shenanigans from all sides. The whole story IS out, if you've been looking.
Palin does not walk her TALK. You (lamely) defend her with YOUR reasoning. You don't address the fact that Palin herself makes consistent claims about these issues that bear no resemblance to yours. You are defending what you are thinking to yourself, not what Palin's constant public talking points are.
September 22, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
let her give a "checkers" speech
checkers was a dog, that nixon admitted was given to him by a lobbyist
nixon got away with using the "Cute" factor to dodge bribery and influence charges
perjury, lying, and obstruction of justice ain't "Cute" in any way
an admission of guilt in this case, no matter how "Cute" would be fatal to the political career of sarah palin
and we wouldn't have whalin mcpalin to kick around anymore ...
September 21, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like the McCain camp has been putting out a lot of misinformation lately. Both McCain and Palin have taken to repeating lies, assuming they can get away with them, the troopergate report seems like a realistic way to get the facts on what happened. I'm pleased that it will be released, but it'll be interesting to see if the McCain camp manages to find a way to shut it down.
http://palincounter.blogspot.com/
September 21, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what the Liberals do. They dig dirt to win while hiding their dirt.
Any liberal reporters investigate Obama? Connection with terrorists, Muslim in disguise, corruption Chicago thug styles. Any investigators go there? Of course not.
How about corruption with Freddie and Fannie to cause the economic crisis now? Continue with the Liberal Congress will destroy America. This is the first warning.
Ugly face, ugly soul.
September 21, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are well named.
September 22, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-soft-preparedness-of-lowered.html
Monday, September 22, 2008
Palin: The Soft Preparedness of Lowered Expectations
In all seriousness, expect the following from Palin's "meetings" with leaders on Tuesday and Wednesday:
-A series of serious-sounding quotes, direct from her days of preparation, that cannot possibly indicate her actual knowledge on the issues, data and risks facing each and with regard to each nation. Quotes, not readiness, happen in days.
-A bevy of positive statements from each leader--after all, that's why they were chosen--all being nations seeking U.S. favor, and having nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by doing so.
-A rush of "surprised" reactions from media at "how seriously she was taken," ready, as so often, to grasp the superficially new.
-An attempt by the McCain camp to drive through her supposed preparedness as a result, as quickly as possible, before the debates.
-Still no in-depth, free-form, extensive challenging interviews on the full range of foreign and domestic policy issues facing this nation from this prospective President.
Don't buy it.
A few days ago, she was ready to invade Russia (which she could see from her border).
Remember, for your security and future: A series of rehearsed quotes does not a President make.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-soft-preparedness-of-lowered.html
September 22, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-soft-preparedness-of-lowered.html
Monday, September 22, 2008
Palin: The Soft Preparedness of Lowered Expectations
In all seriousness, expect the following from Palin's "meetings" with leaders on Tuesday and Wednesday:
-A series of serious-sounding quotes, direct from her days of preparation, that cannot possibly indicate her actual knowledge on the issues, data and risks facing each and with regard to each nation. Quotes, not readiness, happen in days.
-A bevy of positive statements from each leader--after all, that's why they were chosen--all being nations seeking U.S. favor, and having nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by doing so.
-A rush of "surprised" reactions from media at "how seriously she was taken," ready, as so often, to grasp the superficially new.
-An attempt by the McCain camp to drive through her supposed preparedness as a result, as quickly as possible, before the debates.
-Still no in-depth, free-form, extensive challenging interviews on the full range of foreign and domestic policy issues facing this nation from this prospective President.
Don't buy it.
A few days ago, she was ready to invade Russia (which she could see from her border).
Remember, for your security and future: A series of rehearsed quotes does not a President make.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-soft-preparedness-of-lowered.html
September 22, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
From:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-soft-preparedness-of-lowered.html
Monday, September 22, 2008
Palin: The Soft Preparedness of Lowered Expectations
In all seriousness, expect the following from Palin's "meetings" with leaders on Tuesday and Wednesday:
-A series of serious-sounding quotes, direct from her days of preparation, that cannot possibly indicate her actual knowledge on the issues, data and risks facing each and with regard to each nation. Quotes, not readiness, happen in days.
-A bevy of positive statements from each leader--after all, that's why they were chosen--all being nations seeking U.S. favor, and having nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by doing so.
-A rush of "surprised" reactions from media at "how seriously she was taken," ready, as so often, to grasp the superficially new.
-An attempt by the McCain camp to drive through her supposed preparedness as a result, as quickly as possible, before the debates.
-Still no in-depth, free-form, extensive challenging interviews on the full range of foreign and domestic policy issues facing this nation from this prospective President.
Don't buy it.
A few days ago, she was ready to invade Russia (which she could see from her border).
Remember, for your security and future: A series of rehearsed quotes does not a President make.
Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-soft-preparedness-of-lowered.html
September 22, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's correct about the Liberals!
As an Alaskan, I am bursting with pride of my state, and you would have to be an Alaskan to really understand this, so when Vice President Palin takes up residence on Massachusetts Avenue, every fellow-Alaskan will join me...
nah, none of that's true. Just acting out here. Hey, I never disliked Alaskans till since last month, you know? Anyhow, back to our discussion!
September 22, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's correct about the Liberals!
As an Alaskan, I am bursting with pride of my state, and you would have to be an Alaskan to really understand this, so when Vice President Palin takes up residence on Massachusetts Avenue, every fellow-Alaskan will join me...
nah, none of that's true. Just acting out here. Hey, I never disliked Alaskans till since last month, you know? Anyhow, back to our discussion!
September 22, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's correct about the Liberals!
As an Alaskan, I am bursting with pride of my state, and you would have to be an Alaskan to really understand this, so when Vice President Palin takes up residence on Massachusetts Avenue, every fellow-Alaskan will join me...
nah, none of that's true. Just acting out here. Hey, I never disliked Alaskans till since last month, you know? Anyhow, back to our discussion!
September 22, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your state is getting a bad name in this whole thing, you know. I do hate to say this, but people are starting to wonder what the hell is going on up there. "The Governor" (kindly known also by several other monikers on this site), so far has done an "uneven" job of promoting your image.
September 22, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink