• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.

What does Palin have to hide?

New posts
Concerning the trooper, he was also found to have been drinking on the job, in his vehicle. He was suspended 5 days for this.

As for Monegan, from what I hear he was not a team player at all, working against the governor, on many issues. Who would keep someone working for them that was working against them?
 
An excellent opinion piece from her home state:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/530764.html

Palin support is fueled by emotion, not competence

STEVE HAYCOX
COMMENT

Published: September 19th, 2008 12:27 AM
Last Modified: September 19th, 2008 03:30 AM

Sarah Palin's selection as vice-presidential running mate has raised significant questions about her readiness for the job. Critics have raised concerns about her experience, her competence and governing style, and her veracity and consistency.

Supporters respond to the criticism from a populist context. Instinct and emotion are sufficient for rendering a judgment about Palin's qualifications for vice president, or president, they argue. The visceral reaction she elicited at the Republican National Convention, and subsequently campaigning, seems guided not by rational analysis but by deep feeling, a sense that small-town sensibilities are adequate for running the country. She is, supporters say, a born leader, and that's all one needs to know. To them details are not as important as instinct, details most likely dredged up by misguided elitists anyway.

Palin's critics argue that the details make all the difference, that they demonstrate what kind of vice president, or president, she would be. Her management of the city of Wasilla is under scrutiny. There, she hired a lobbyist who got significant earmarks into the federal budget; with a sales tax she secured passage of a bond to construct a sports facility that's too far from the city center on land the town doesn't own; she redecorated her office without authorization from the City Council.

In her campaign for governor she initially supported the Ketchikan bridge project, then when Congress refused to dedicate the funds for that project, opposed it.

As governor, she appointed as head of the Agriculture Division a high school classmate without known qualifications, one of several appointments that suggest cronyism. Her unelected, unappointed husband receives official state e-mails and sits in on high-level meetings.

On the campaign trail, she has argued that Alaska's proximity to Russia and being head of the Alaska National Guard constitute foreign relations and executive experience. And since her selection for the national ticket she has changed her response to the Legislature's investigation into her firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, from welcoming encouragement to a refusal to cooperate. In addition, a McCain-Palin campaign lawyer has acknowledged advising a state-hired attorney on the Troopergate affair.

On a more broad front, people who have closely watched her performance as governor report a lack of curiosity about the details of government operations and a failure to delegate authority.

These are the kinds of details critics deem important. For them, such evidence far outweighs any instinctual or visceral positive response to Palin. Actions, the critics advise, speak louder than words, and these actions suggest absence of the perspective, prudence and discipline consistently found necessary to govern effectively.

Populism and expertise have been in tension in American politics since the beginning of the republic. The first U.S. constitution, the Articles of Confederation, had to be scrapped after less than a decade partly because of too much populism: Fretful taxpayers in the several states prevented the Articles Congress from achieving the unanimous vote necessary to implement a tax policy.

In the subsequent constitutional convention in 1787 in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton argued for universal manhood suffrage in electing the House of Representatives, a populist measure. But the founders insulated the U.S. Senate from populist impulses by having its members elected by the several state legislatures (changed by amendment in only 1914), and similarly insulated the presidential choice by providing the Electoral College. Thus, the finished Constitution incorporated both philosophies, but clearly relied more on expertise than on the people's instinct.

So also, later, in the Progressive Era, reformers balanced new populist measures -- direct election of senators, extending the vote to women, providing initiative, referendum and recall at the state level -- with regulation by experts in virtually all areas of government, from monitoring the banking industry to managing the country's natural resources.

Karl Rove has suggested that infatuation with Sarah Palin will not last through the remaining seven weeks of the campaign. Partly that's because most voters recognize that choice by viscera is no good for the nation, not in a time of nuclear potential and economic turmoil. Experience brings familiarity, humility and better, more effective judgment. The country will be more fortunate if Palin gets the opportunity for more executive experience, completing her term as Alaska's eighth full-term governor.

Steve Haycox is a professor of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
 
Woman = Emotional Mess :roll:

I must add a story here. The female mayor of Galveston was reported to have had a moment in the middle of Ike pounding her fair city. She broke down and cried. The, as fast as she broke down, she recovered and got back to work. I love this woman.
 
I actually thought this whole thing was silly when I first heard of it, really who cares. I dismissed it as not important. It sounded like a family squabble and a little vindictive but not a matter of major concern. The only reason I am remotely interested in "troopergate" is because they are hiding it.

Elected officials are paid from our taxes to do a job for us. I want accountability from them. Accountability has escaped the current administration. I want the truth now because Palin says she's a reformer, but acts like one of the good old boys. Now I care, because her actions aren't matching her words. We are discovering more unpleasant half truths and out right lies that make all her actions look more like the Bush "good old boy" stuff that she says she wants to change.

Cronyism in her adminstration, doing whatever she wants, you are with her or against her, all sound scarily familiar. Show us the real person, don't hide behind the law and let people decide for themselves if they want to vote for her as VP on the "Palin/McCain" ticket. (Did anyone else see that she listed herself on the top of the ticket in Iowa?)
 
Last edited:
*sigh* can we all just agree what this is really about? Last year at this time everyone figured that the Democrat's nominee would be more preoccupied with picking out new china for the White House than actually fighting to get there. Fast forward to today and here is this woman nobody has ever heard of picked as the GOP VP who effectively brings hard core righties into McCain's tent. Her non-nuanced positions are the stuff of leftist nightmares, yet they realize she is making McC competitive, ergo, search and destroy.

This is not unprecedented-Geraldine Ferraro added a jolt to Fritz Mondale's campaign. Their bid fizzled concurrent with persistent GOP questioning about her congressional campaign finance practices.

If the polls were not tight right now, as they never were intended to be, I think that what happened in Alaska would stay in Alaska. But the stakes are too high here-if the Democrats manage to bungle this presidential election they might as well cease to participate in the exercise in four years. Palin must be destroyed in the name of change we can believe in!
 
An excellent opinion piece from her home state:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/530764.html

Palin support is fueled by emotion, not competence

STEVE HAYCOX
COMMENT

Published: September 19th, 2008 12:27 AM
Last Modified: September 19th, 2008 03:30 AM

Sarah Palin's selection as vice-presidential running mate has raised significant questions about her readiness for the job. Critics have raised concerns about her experience, her competence and governing style, and her veracity and consistency.

Supporters respond to the criticism from a populist context. Instinct and emotion are sufficient for rendering a judgment about Palin's qualifications for vice president, or president, they argue. The visceral reaction she elicited at the Republican National Convention, and subsequently campaigning, seems guided not by rational analysis but by deep feeling, a sense that small-town sensibilities are adequate for running the country. She is, supporters say, a born leader, and that's all one needs to know. To them details are not as important as instinct, details most likely dredged up by misguided elitists anyway.

Palin's critics argue that the details make all the difference, that they demonstrate what kind of vice president, or president, she would be. Her management of the city of Wasilla is under scrutiny. There, she hired a lobbyist who got significant earmarks into the federal budget; with a sales tax she secured passage of a bond to construct a sports facility that's too far from the city center on land the town doesn't own; she redecorated her office without authorization from the City Council.

In her campaign for governor she initially supported the Ketchikan bridge project, then when Congress refused to dedicate the funds for that project, opposed it.

As governor, she appointed as head of the Agriculture Division a high school classmate without known qualifications, one of several appointments that suggest cronyism. Her unelected, unappointed husband receives official state e-mails and sits in on high-level meetings.

On the campaign trail, she has argued that Alaska's proximity to Russia and being head of the Alaska National Guard constitute foreign relations and executive experience. And since her selection for the national ticket she has changed her response to the Legislature's investigation into her firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, from welcoming encouragement to a refusal to cooperate. In addition, a McCain-Palin campaign lawyer has acknowledged advising a state-hired attorney on the Troopergate affair.

On a more broad front, people who have closely watched her performance as governor report a lack of curiosity about the details of government operations and a failure to delegate authority.

These are the kinds of details critics deem important. For them, such evidence far outweighs any instinctual or visceral positive response to Palin. Actions, the critics advise, speak louder than words, and these actions suggest absence of the perspective, prudence and discipline consistently found necessary to govern effectively.

Populism and expertise have been in tension in American politics since the beginning of the republic. The first U.S. constitution, the Articles of Confederation, had to be scrapped after less than a decade partly because of too much populism: Fretful taxpayers in the several states prevented the Articles Congress from achieving the unanimous vote necessary to implement a tax policy.

In the subsequent constitutional convention in 1787 in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton argued for universal manhood suffrage in electing the House of Representatives, a populist measure. But the founders insulated the U.S. Senate from populist impulses by having its members elected by the several state legislatures (changed by amendment in only 1914), and similarly insulated the presidential choice by providing the Electoral College. Thus, the finished Constitution incorporated both philosophies, but clearly relied more on expertise than on the people's instinct.

So also, later, in the Progressive Era, reformers balanced new populist measures -- direct election of senators, extending the vote to women, providing initiative, referendum and recall at the state level -- with regulation by experts in virtually all areas of government, from monitoring the banking industry to managing the country's natural resources.

Karl Rove has suggested that infatuation with Sarah Palin will not last through the remaining seven weeks of the campaign. Partly that's because most voters recognize that choice by viscera is no good for the nation, not in a time of nuclear potential and economic turmoil. Experience brings familiarity, humility and better, more effective judgment. The country will be more fortunate if Palin gets the opportunity for more executive experience, completing her term as Alaska's eighth full-term governor.

Steve Haycox is a professor of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
__________________

This is an editorial opinion, which is not necessarily facts.

As for the use of lobbyist. Sometimes the thinking is, "If someone is going to get this money it might as well be us." In the past the Walton county has taken many grants for things which benefit the general public. My husband, who was a commissioner at one time, always felt that many times it is a misuse of tax dollars, however, would rather have the money spent here than another part of the state.
 
Last edited:
Woman = Emotional Mess :roll:

I must add a story here. The female mayor of Galveston was reported to have had a moment in the middle of Ike pounding her fair city. She broke down and cried. The, as fast as she broke down, she recovered and got back to work. I love this woman.

God love her.
 
Concerning the trooper, he was also found to have been drinking on the job, in his vehicle. He was suspended 5 days for this.

As for Monegan, from what I hear he was not a team player at all, working against the governor, on many issues. Who would keep someone working for them that was working against them?

Who knows exactly about how well he worked with her, but I read that most people who worked with him really respected him. Here is the "cleanest" source I could find, an article from the ADN right after he was fired. The comments following the article are dated well before the VP selection, and many people were very upset. He seems to have been popular.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/463204.html
 
This is an editorial opinion, which is not necessarily facts.

As for the use of lobbyist. Sometimes the thinking is, "If someone is going to get this money it might as well be us." In the past the Walton county has taken many grants for things which benefit the general public. My husband, who was a commissioner at one time, always felt that many times it is a misuse of tax dollars, however, would rather have the money spent here than another part of the state.

The lobbyist part of this story is the least interesting.

Who knows exactly about how well he worked with her, but I read that most people who worked with him really respected him. Here is the "cleanest" source I could find, an article from the ADN right after he was fired. The comments following the article are dated well before the VP selection, and many people were very upset. He seems to have been popular.

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/463204.html

Thanks TFT.
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top