U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Funny, I think you've wrapped up the dilemma for the 20% of US non-party-affiliated voters who will actually decide this election.

Hence all the bombast you see and hear (and read).

---

Bombast doesn't even begin to describe what's been going on the last few pages, sans some quality posting yet again by ATPG and one or two others.:thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hollis French- the Democrat in charge of the investigation really gave it an unbiased/unpoliticized start when he said: :dizzy2:

Frankly, I don't understand why it's a big deal if she did push for Wooten's firing. An internal State Police investigation found that Wooten had drank beer in his patrol car, tazered his stepson, threatened to shoot Palin's father in the head, and more. She had firsthand knowledge of how unfit the man is to be on the force- why would it be wrong for her to want to know why he isn't being fired?link

It's almost like saying if a PA state trooper punched Ed Rendell in the mouth, that it would be an abuse of power to want him fired since it involved him personally. :dizzy2:

---

I tend to discredit any kind of news or analysis that is slanted one way or another in an overt fashion. I wish there was some really apathetic nihilistic person we could hire to give us unbiased reporting.

I find it hard to believe that through all of this, Palin had a halo and was untouchable, just based on her shoddy performance and disingenuous methods to-date. That being said, I don't drink any kool-aid regarding how evil the republicans are and how great the democrats are, because I think both parties are corrupt and evil.

When the Dems spin this story one way, Palin is evil, and when the Reps spin it the other way, she's a heroine. Anyone interested in the facts? Not republican facts or democrat facts, but FACT facts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Anyone interested in the facts? Not republican facts or democrat facts, but FACT facts?

---

Ooooh! Oooooh! Sign me up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The implications this decision has on the presidential contest should not have been a relevant issue to the panel.

---

So... questions of abuse of power should be politically hushed up until after an election, when it's too late for voters to rethink their decision?

This is a really cynical mindset. Like.. "well, it's not a question of corruption, or character, or abuse of power, or integrity in following the law. It's all just spin about if the timing is convenient for us to damage control it." I think there are voters to whom issues like this do actually matter. Granted they're probably not a majority, but still.

Quote:

---

When the Dems spin this story one way, Palin is evil, and when the Reps spin it the other way, she's a heroine. Anyone interested in the facts? Not republican facts or democrat facts, but FACT facts?

---

What would those be exactly? Share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

So... questions of abuse of power should be politically hushed up until after an election, when it's too late for voters to rethink their decision?

---

Koga, that is not what PJ said. He said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

The implications this decision has on the presidential contest should not have been a relevant issue to the panel.

---

The panel should concern itself with the facts of the case, not the implications of the case to Palin as a VP candidate. The implications are for others, like the voters, to decide.

Quote:

---

The panel should concern itself with the facts of the case, not the implications of the case to Palin as a VP candidate. The implications are for others, like the voters, to decide.

---

And there is some reason to believe a mass conspiracy to keep Palin out of the White House prompted this entire investigation? As far as I can tell, this investigation has been going on since before she was picked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

And there is some reason to believe a mass conspiracy to keep Palin out of the White House prompted this entire investigation? As far as I can tell, this investigation has been going on since before she was picked.

---

You don't remember when the Obama campaign dumped 25 lawyers into Anchorage to investigate Palin and dig up stories about Troopergate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You don't remember when the Obama campaign dumped 25 lawyers into Anchorage to investigate Palin and dig up stories about Troopergate?

---

I remember the GOP also dumping lawyers into Anchorage to help do damage control or even delay the investigation, as they did successfully with the subpoena on Todd Palin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

And there is some reason to believe a mass conspiracy to keep Palin out of the White House prompted this entire investigation? As far as I can tell, this investigation has been going on since before she was picked.

---

Yes Koga, you are right, it started in July - but that is not what PJ was commenting on. From the CNN article cited earlier:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CNN article

The state senator managing the probe, Sen. Hollis French, fueled those complaints with a September 2 interview in which he warned the inquiry could yield an "October Surprise" for the GOP.

---

The senator managing the probe talking (after Palin selected as VP) about election implications of his investigation is in bad form. He should be focused on the investigation, not speculating publicly on a possible "October Surprise" impact of the investigation on the presidential race. It puts into question his impartiality. Don't you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

Yes Koga, you are right, it started in July - but that is not what PJ was commenting on. From the CNN article cited earlier:


The senator managing the probe talking (after Palin selected as VP) about election implications of his investigation is in bad form. He should be focused on the investigation, not speculating publicly on a possible "October Surprise" impact of the investigation on the presidential race. It puts into question his impartiality. Don't you agree?

---

It most certainly could be interpreted that way. But I don't know the guy. Maybe he was giving them a heads up? The GOP tried to do its best to get all the investigations shelved or delayed till after November, and succeeded at least 50% with the Todd Palin thing. At any rate, him warning of a possible October Surprise doesn't exactly sound like "MWA HA HA HA HA! NOW OBAMA SHALL WIN, PUNY REPUBLICANS!" It could be taken as a conflict of interests, or a fair warning in advance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

What would those be exactly? Share.

---

I was hoping you had some. Anyone, really. Anyone have the real facts, or is all journalism hopelessly slanted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I was hoping you had some. Anyone, really. Anyone have the real facts, or is all journalism hopelessly slanted?

---

Haha :laugh4: ... you think there is a chance that it isn't hopelessly biased...

I'll be absent from this thread until Tuesday (My time) because my intertubes are clogged (ie - I'm in danger of being capped)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You don't remember when the Obama campaign dumped 25 lawyers into Anchorage to investigate Palin and dig up stories about Troopergate?

---

I remember some people making that story up.

Quote:

---

Frankly, I don't understand why it's a big deal if she did push for Wooten's firing.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

You don't remember when the Obama campaign dumped 25 lawyers into Anchorage to investigate Palin and dig up stories about Troopergate?

---

You don't remember when the Republican party tried to dely the investigation until after the campaign?

No one is innocent. Especially not Palin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Anyone have the real facts, or is all journalism hopelessly slanted?

---

If you arrive at the idea that "There is no good reporting, it's all advocacy in sheep's clothing," then you've arrived at a fallacy. I can think of many, many sources of news that are good more often than not:

The Economist
The Christian Science Monitor

To name just two that I don't think anyone is stupid/partisan enough to argue. And there are many more good sources, so long as you're willing to understand the difference between editorials and reporting. For all the slime that gets slung at it, the New York Times does more original reporting than any other two newspapers put together, and their archives are free, searchable, and extend back to the 1800s, which is extremely cool.

Factcheck and Snopes are also good places for factish facts. Even though it should not be accurate, since anyone can edit it, Wikipedia is shockingly on the mark most of the time.

There is an objective reality where things are true or false. Don't let the partisan bickering fool you into thinking otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Frankly, I don't understand why it's a big deal if she did push for Wooten's firing.

Quote:

---

Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both:

• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

• He illegally shot a moose.

• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

---

---

The real question is: Why was Palin palling around with the likes of Wooten? :beam:




My quick thoughts:
The bipartisan investigation was already well underway before Palin was picked as running mate. Persons involved with the investigation should not have taken the bait by answereing questions about October surprises after Palin's pick.

Whether or not Wooten was rightfully, or at least deservedly, dismissed is not the issue. (I say he was) The issue is whether Palin abused her power by dismissing Moneghan.
The report concludes that Sarah Palin abused her power. And also that Palin nevertheless acted within her rights as Governor of Alaska. Poor show by Palin, but not good enough to disqualify her outright.

On a hunch, I think the report's findings are a bipartisan compromise. The investigators did not want this powder keg, and simply defused it.
'Abuse of power, yet within her rights?' 'A family grudge was not the sole reason for the dismissal, but was a likely contributing factor'? 'In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain. And personal gain can not be identified'?
Meh, weak.


Palin and Alaska make me wish I knew some Fargo quotes. Because that's what this all reminds me of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

The issue is whether Palin abused her power by dismissing Moneghan.

---

They didn't "get" her on that even; they decided firing Moneghan was within her prerogative.

Quote:

---

"She had the authority and power to require Mr. Palin to cease contacting subordinates, but she failed to act," the report said.

---

Article

So they're dinging her for failing to rein in her hubby, who was not a public official.

BTW, the trooper is still on-duty.

Quote:

---

The report concludes that Sarah Palin abused her power. And also that Palin nevertheless acted within her rights as Governor of Alaska.

---

Thats two seperate issues Louis , the abuse of power was the interference and pressure over Wootens job , the within her rights bit is about her following the correct proceedures to remove Moneghan . Though of course her ever changing reasons about why she exercised that power to remove Moneghan just don't add up at all . So while the proceedure was correct if she cannot make up a credible story as to why she did it and stick to it then it raises a whole new can of worms on her ethics in office and abuse of office .
McCain really picked a muppet for a running mate didn't he :yes:

Quote:

---

'In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain. And personal gain can not be identified'?

---

The personal gain was of a domestic nature , interfering in the process for the benefit of her family .
Once there is a conflict of interests then under the ethics guide you have to remove yourself from the topic .
Like if you take Xiahous rather funny example ......

Quote:

---

It's almost like saying if a PA state trooper punched Ed Rendell in the mouth, that it would be an abuse of power to want him fired since it involved him personally.

---

..what would Rendell have to do to ensure that he did not abuse his office in that case ?

Whoever coined the phrase, "Familiarity breeds contempt" had to be talking about politics, politicians, and the political process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

• Wooten used a Taser on his stepson.

• He illegally shot a moose.

• He drank beer in his patrol car on one occasion.

• He told others his father-in-law would "eat a ing lead bullet" if he helped his daughter get an attorney for the divorce.

---

After his stepson begged him to show him how the tazer worked, wooten (who trains people to use tazers) taped (not shot) the electrode thingies to him and zapped him.

He shot a moose while on a hunting trip with his wife (who did have a permit), a common practice in alaska that the police don't bother with.

I guess the spin machine at the rnc has been working overtime on this one ~:handball:

I think there's enough conflicts of interest in this whole thing to make Solomon wince.

-If Wooten was threatening his father-in-law, charges should have been filed.
-If Wooten was snowmobiling and hunting while out on disability, that should have been forwarded to the labor bureau.
-If Wooten was tasering his minor stepson, he should have been reported to the authorities.

None of the above required Palin's direct involvement, or even for Moneghan to fire him for that matter.

All that being said, when the chairman of the panel goes on national television licking his chops saying he's going to get her right in the middle of October, one has to scratch their head over how impartial the findings can possibly be.

But what I do know, I'm a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, right Koga? :laugh4:

Rape Threat to Sarah Palin

Just thought we should show some of Obamas crazies to.

Berhnhard since claimed she never actually said that, and she wasn't remembering her own monologue properly in the post-performance interview she's quoted in that you posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Berhnhard since claimed she never actually said that, and she wasn't remembering her own monologue properly in the post-performance interview she's quoted in that you posted.

---

Really? Wouldn't surprise me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

After his stepson begged him to show him how the tazer worked, wooten (who trains people to use tazers) taped (not shot) the electrode thingies to him and zapped him.

He shot a moose while on a hunting trip with his wife (who did have a permit), a common practice in alaska that the police don't bother with.

I guess the spin machine at the rnc has been working overtime on this one ~:handball:

---

Phew. Thanks for clearing it up for us. It's good to have someone on the forums that was actually there to witness all of this. The Palin family must have just not liked him because their dark powers were training them for attacking the messiah. While we are at it lets canonize Wooten!

Turning a blind eye to some of your party's lesser moments is natural. But by golly, what a load of partisan emo and victimisation in this election. Gah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Phew. Thanks for clearing it up for us. It's good to have someone on the forums that was actually there to witness all of this. The Palin family must have just not liked him because their dark powers were training them for attacking the messiah. While we are at it lets canonize Wooten!

---

Were any of us in Vietnam? Does that disqualify us from establishing whether McCain ever actually was in Vietnam?

Maybe Sasaki is right, maybe not. Show me where he's wrong if you take issue whit his points. Sources and criticism of the sources are the ay to move a debate forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike

Just thought we should show some of Obamas crazies to.

---

Plenty of whacko's out there, on both sides. That is not important. Bringing them to the fore only leads to back-and-forth partisan hackery.

What matters is not what happens in the gutter, but what happens at the top. Show me where Biden stooped as low as Palin in their roles of attack dog. Or where Obama / Biden whip their crowd into a frenzy of rage.

A possible, though improbable, October surprise for the other side:
Tony Rezko is talking.

The Wooten thing is the Palins trying to fight the blue line of brotherhood to get a bad cop fired. They did unethical things, it appears. But to me, that's just fighting fire with fire.

Look at it this way; the cop threatened to shoot and kill an in-law. And he's still on the force. If that in-law was your father, you wouldn't be tempted to use your power to get the trooper fired?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I think there's enough conflicts of interest in this whole thing to make Solomon wince.

-If Wooten was threatening his father-in-law, charges should have been filed.
-If Wooten was snowmobiling and hunting while out on disability, that should have been forwarded to the labor bureau.
-If Wooten was tasering his minor stepson, he should have been reported to the authorities.

---

Don, he was reported for tasering his stepson and for threatening the life of his father in law and for drinking in his patrol car. The state police investigation found the charges to be true and gave Wooten.... wait for it.... a five day suspension as punishment. Apparently the Alaskan troopers have a really good union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

After his stepson begged him to show him how the tazer worked, wooten (who trains people to use tazers) taped (not shot) the electrode thingies to him and zapped him.

---

Yes, clearly a responsible police officer who would use his weapon on his own stepson (over the mother's objections) because the son wanted to show his cousin how tough he was. Very professional behavior.

Quote:

---

He shot a moose while on a hunting trip with his wife (who did have a permit), a common practice in alaska that the police don't bother with.

---

A common practice in Alaska? Who's spinning now? Let's see what Wooten's superior Colonel Grimes, had to say on the issue:

Quote:

---

The issue of the wildlife violation has even deeper ramifications. As a hunter, and certainly a law enforcement officer you knew or should have known the conditions for the drawing permit and the hunt. The fact that you are currently assigned as a wildlife crimes investigator exponentially exacerbates this violation it is absolutely contrary to your current assignment

---

Then there is still the issue of his drinking beer in his patrol car, and threatening the life of his father-in-law. Plus the numerous other complaints and reprimands against him. Are those spin too? I don't see where anyone can argue that Wooten is a good trooper- I think any reasonable person would be amazed to learn Wooten is still working. The contention is whether or not Palin used her office to push for his firing and if she fired Monegan because he refused to cooperate.

This thread has ceased being informative. It is like listening to the blind argue over who's the ugliest. Time for a vacation from this thread.