This Palin email thing is gonna explode in the Obama camp's faces even though there is no evidence they had ANYTHING to do with it. I guess it is the old axiom: If you lie down with dogs, yer gonna get u with fleas.
Read the account by Rubico. Simply amazing.
Americans have a natural propensity to come to the aid/defense/support of a victim. This could not have played better in Palins favor if she had orchestrated it herself, which is absurdly unlikely.
This Palin email thing is gonna explode in the Obama camp's faces even though there is no evidence they had ANYTHING to do with it. I guess it is the old axiom: If you lie down with dogs, yer gonna get u with fleas.
Read the account by Rubico. Simply amazing.
Americans have a natural propensity to come to the aid/defense/support of a victim. This could not have played better in Palins favor if she had orchestrated it herself, which is absurdly unlikely.
Now, this is a Palin story actually worth commenting on, as it's not actually a story about Palin at all.
Couple thoughts here. 1) Palin showed questionable judgment using a private address for public purposes. 2) The hackers showed even poorer judgment doing this. 3) It sounds like the Secret Service or FBI may get involved. 4) This is just one more ugly thing to happen to/with Palin. 5) This won't harm Obama as his campaign clearly had nothing to do with it. 6) When investigations find the perpetrators, #5 will be validated.
Net result: it's too bad this happened, but it will actually harm Palin. Robroy is right that American's support victims, but only up to a point. If someone is abused by their spouse once (or a couple times) we console them. If it has happened 100 times we ask why they didn't leave after the first couple.
Palin has about used up her victim card, I'm starting to see people grow tired of it. At this point, each revelation like this harms her. And the election is still 2 months off. By November, people won't really remember what all the fuss was about but they'll have some lingering doubts over her because of how many negative news cycles her name has been linked to (even if she was innocent or victim in the actual stories).
I thought I was going to see a smoking gun. Then I actually read what you posted.
Have you ever had kids? Have you ever had to make a major job decision and asked the kids about it? I have done both.
I can tell you that those two accounts are NOT contradictory as one unfamiliar with such a situation would believe them to be. But on this I will also quote Ann Coulter's response on another issue:
It is "...Olbmermannic in the sense that (a) if it were true, it's trivial, and (b) it's not true."
This sort of hack job against her is only hurting those that bring it up. As I have said in a previous post, the only person alive who has no skeletons in the closet was hanged on a cross for my sins. The rest of us have them. The question is only how many and how bad do they stink. Add that to the simple fact that when you are tallying and rating these skeletons, they only matter in relation to the other sides number and stinkyness.
I go back to my quote from Ann.
I think if it is true, then it's not trivial. Why lie about anything at all when these things get tracked by every website? Do you just think it's OK to lie when it suits you? Also someone who is willing to lie about small things is usually willing to lie about big things.
Sure, this story is small potatoes, and I meant it in fun. But still, why would you lie about something like that? There's no point.
And on the email hack, I think it'll be worse for Palin for the same reasons rose said. Obama's people had nothing to do with it. Hacker kids thought it woudl be funny and now they're going to be brought up on federal charges. Stupid them. It makes her look dumb for using a private email for government business. Something as unsecure as Yahoo.
1) Palin showed questionable judgment using a private address for public purposes.
No, she did not. That is one of the interesting things I am seeing here. That is repeated so often yet there is no evidence of it. None.
I also like what the aledged hacker said:
I read though the emails... ALL OF THEM... before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor.... And pictures of her family
snip
Earlier it was just some prank to me, I really wanted to get something incriminating which I was sure there would be, just like all of you anon out there that you think there was some missed opportunity of glory, well there WAS NOTHING, I read everything, every little blackberry confirmation... all the pictures, and there was nothing...
You do have a point here;
4) This is just one more ugly thing to happen to/with Palin.
It makes her look, to the electorate, like a helpless victim to an attempted public rape.
5) This won't harm Obama as his campaign clearly had nothing to do with it.
I don't think it will harm Obama's campaign directly, but I think it will help McCain/Palin, which indirectly hurts Obama's campaign.
Net result: it's too bad this happened, but it will actually harm Palin. Robroy is right that American's support victims, but only up to a point. If someone is abused by their spouse once (or a couple times) we console them. If it has happened 100 times we ask why they didn't leave after the first couple.
Palin has about used up her victim card, I'm starting to see people grow tired of it. At this point, each revelation like this harms her. And the election is still 2 months off. By November, people won't really remember what all the fuss was about but they'll have some lingering doubts over her because of how many negative news cycles her name has been linked to (even if she was innocent or victim in the actual stories).
I don't think there can be too many dirty tricks (and that is what this is). And it does not matter where they come from. After a while some of the people that really don't care that much who gets elected will just vote for her to get even with the constant attackers. The psychology of supporting the underdog is interesting. If the underdog is there because it is all self inflicted, that's one thing, but if it is due to meanness (think "The Mighty Ducks"), the voters will never be numbed by "too many" dirty tricks.
And with the explosion of use of the internet, dirty tricks become vetted as such remarkably rapidly.
1) Palin showed questionable judgment using a private address for public purposes.
No, she did not. That is one of the interesting things I am seeing here. That is repeated so often yet there is no evidence of it. None.
I also like what the aledged hacker said:
I read though the emails... ALL OF THEM... before I posted, and what I concluded was anticlimactic, there was nothing there, nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped, all I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor.... And pictures of her family
Read it again. He didn't find anything incriminating, but he did find "some clerical stuff from when she was governor". She used the account for public business. There is good reason to believe that she discussed this with her advisers as a way to make some emails un-subpoena-able. So, he didn't find anything. The entire practice still exhibits either questionable judgment (why expose her personal life to her public?) or questionable morals (why attempt to hide some emails?). I gave her the benefit of the doubt that it was more mistake and less sneaky, but regardless the events surrounding this do her no favors.
I don't think there can be too many dirty tricks (and that is what this is). And it does not matter where they come from. After a while some of the people that really don't care that much who gets elected will just vote for her to get even with the constant attackers. The psychology of supporting the underdog is interesting. If the underdog is there because it is all self inflicted, that's one thing, but if it is due to meanness (think "The Mighty Ducks"), the voters will never be numbed by "too many" dirty tricks.
Terrible analogy. When sports teams play, I love to root for the underdog (if I don't already have a favorite involved). I think it would be really cool if the Pirates won the World Series for example because they are so awful. But we aren't talking about sports team here, we're talking about real world and electing people who will have real impacts on our lives.
People will do what's best for themselves. Extreme example, but let's say someone time-traveled from the future and said, "If you elect McCain we go into a depression and if you elect Obama the economy will grow by 10% annual." With verifiable news like that, Obama himself could actually hit Palin in the knee with a bat, and break McCain's hands and he would still win handedly. Everyone just wants a better life for themselves, and pretending that Palin looking bad is going to change that is naive.
The republicans run a huge risk as each of these stories prevents them from telling stories about how they are going to make things better for us, and it's starting to show up in the polls. The latest poll of polls show Obama strengthening again (up 4 pts from last time and leading overall again).
Read it again. He didn't find anything incriminating, but he did find "some clerical stuff from when she was governor".
Mmm hmmm.
And what does that mean? Do you realize it could LITERALLY mean scheduling an office picnic? It could be clerical stuff from campaigning. It could have been talking about picking up her car from the shop during lunch "while she was governor".
What it means is that a guy who was LOOKING FOR DIRT found nothing. That statement has nothing in the context of his comments to support it as some sort of smoking gun and everything in his other words to support that it was NOTHING.
With nothing else to support it, it IS nothing. It is as though the statement was not made. Clerical stuff?! You crack me up!
She used the account for public business.
No she didn't. That will be my position until I see actual evidence to the contrary.
There is good reason to believe that she discussed this with her advisers as a way to make some emails un-subpoena-able. So, he didn't find anything.
I would certainly hope so! That is what any responsible adult in a political office would do. Although I must admit I am not sure what you mean by "this".
The entire practice still exhibits either questionable judgment (why expose her personal life to her public?) or questionable morals (why attempt to hide some emails?).
That entire statement is speculation and there is no evidence to support it. That is, unless you are trying to say that the very fact that she had a personal email address was itself irresponsible.
That won't get you far with most people. It is like saying someone is an unsafe driver for not wearing a helmet in their car. The problem is that your position does not pass the "reasonableness" test.
I gave her the benefit of the doubt that it was more mistake and less sneaky, but regardless the events surrounding this do her no favors.
I don't see a mistake or sneakyness here. I see a person who had their personal email hacked. And the hacker, by his own admission, was seriously disappointed that he could not find anything incriminating. But apparently your standards are lower than his ("clerical stuff"). That one is still cracking me up.
Terrible analogy. When sports teams play, I love to root for the underdog (if I don't already have a favorite involved). I think it would be really cool if the Pirates won the World Series for example because they are so awful.
You make the case for my analogy. I said, "If the underdog is there because it is all self inflicted, that's one thing, but if it is due to meanness...". "Awful" means "self inflicted. She can be perceived as the underdog not due to self inflicted damage, but because of corrupt or biased referees - to further the sports example.
Tell me, have you ever watched a game where you thought the referees were biased? I have, and sometimes blatantly so. And I start SERIOUSLY rooting for the team they seem to have it out for. It is easy for me to do this because I am not a sports fan. On the rare occasion where I watch a basketball game to "be with the guys", I couldn't care less who wins the game. However, I have strongly sided with a team when I think the refs have it out for them. Same will happen with swing voters regarding McCain/Palin and this sort of thing.
People will do what's best for themselves. Extreme example, but let's say someone time-traveled from the future and said, "If you elect McCain we go into a depression and if you elect Obama the economy will grow by 10% annual." With verifiable news like that, Obama himself could actually hit Palin in the knee with a bat, and break McCain's hands and he would still win handedly.
I agree, assuming it was reasonable to believe he really was from the future - and telling the truth.
Everyone just wants a better life for themselves, and pretending that Palin looking bad is going to change that is naive.
Yep, but barring the guy from the future, this stuff matters. A lot. The "who will make your life better" part is still being debated.
The republicans run a huge risk as each of these stories prevents them from telling stories about how they are going to make things better for us, and it's starting to show up in the polls. The latest poll of polls show Obama strengthening again (up 4 pts from last time and leading overall again).
Yeah, and then there is this sort of stuff from McCain who was pretty silent on this stuff until now:
Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae's CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie's former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn't lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That's not change, that's what's broken in Washington.
BTW, that money from F&F statement is absolutely true. It is very damning considering he rose to second place while being in the senate for such a short time.
This is not preventing the republicans from telling stories about how they are going to make things better for us. This is just another front, and one the republicans are winning on, handily.
As information makes itself available, this is getting more and more exciting!
Wow! You're right. If a politician's child does something that their parent might not agree with, like Dem. Rep. Mike Kernell, we should blame the parentBarak Obama.
Is Barak Obama therefore also to blame for Bristol's pregnancy?
None of this matters, it's all sideshows and at best it just sullies Palin's name a little bit more.
I gave her the benefit of the doubt that it was more mistake and less sneaky, but regardless the events surrounding this do her no favors.
I don't see a mistake or sneakyness here. I see a person who had their personal email hacked. And the hacker, by his own admission, was seriously disappointed that he could not find anything incriminating. But apparently your standards are lower than his ("clerical stuff"). That one is still cracking me up.
I never suggested the emails contained dirt. The reports contradict that assertion, and I accept the facts as they are. Further, I never suggested that it even mattered. The only reason anyone tried to hack that account is because she was allegedly using Rovian tactics to hide damaging email records.
While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a "personal device" like a BlackBerry "would be confidential and not subject to subpoena."
Palin's favorable rating is at 40 percent, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. That's down 4 points from last week. Her unfavorable rating is at 30 percent, rising 8 points in a week.
But then, a 12% swing in unfavorability in just a wek is no biggie. If she keeps it up, she'll still be viewed more favorably than not by next Tuesday. On the bright side, 30 Rock will be on again soon, and if Tina Fey is funny enough people might forget they are different people.
Wow! You're right. If a politician's child does something that their parent might not agree with, like Dem. Rep. Mike Kernell, we should blame the parentBarak Obama.
Thanks for saying I'm right and all, but you are saying I'm right about an assertion I did not make.
None of this matters, it's all sideshows and at best it just sullies Palin's name a little bit more.
Actually, it does matter and it is not sullying her name.
While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a "personal device" like a BlackBerry "would be confidential and not subject to subpoena."
That's just a hit piece. I also side with the strategy listed here. I like to think of my conversations as private. It offends me that if I say something to someone across a cube wall it is private, but if I IM the same person it can be used against me in a court of law. I would love that it were not so.
There is the old phrase, "Never write down what you can say. Never say what you can whisper. Never whisper what you can nod. Never nod what you can wink. And never wink what you can smile. Do you think politicians are being devious if they refuse to make audio recordings of their meetings? I'll get fired for it if I attempt to do it where I work, even with everyone's consent.
Palin's favorable rating is at 40 percent, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll. That's down 4 points from last week. Her unfavorable rating is at 30 percent, rising 8 points in a week.
But then, a 12% swing in unfavorability in just a wek is no biggie. If she keeps it up, she'll still be viewed more favorably than not by next Tuesday. On the bright side, 30 Rock will be on again soon, and if Tina Fey is funny enough people might forget they are different people.
That thing on SNL was absolutely hilarious! I showed it to all my friends.
Today's course is a study in the Robroy approach to filtering news stories.
1) If you don't like the results of some numeric process, mock it.
2) If you like the results of a numeric process, say how much "fun it is"...repeatedly.
3) If a news source agrees with your presuppositions and is small (blog, YouTube video, etc) point out how independent it is.
4) If a reliable news source disagrees with your presuppositions, point out how "biased" it is (without defining what biased news means).
5) If an independent news source disagrees with your presuppositions, argue how much harm it will do to Obama.
6) If a mainstream news source agrees with you, don't admit it's only Fox News.
Today's course is a study in the Robroy approach to filtering news stories.
1) If you don't like the results of some numeric process, mock it.
2) If you like the results of a numeric process, say how much "fun it is"...repeatedly.
3) If a news source agrees with your presuppositions and is small (blog, YouTube video, etc) point out how independent it is.
4) If a reliable news source disagrees with your presuppositions, point out how "biased" it is (without defining what biased news means).
5) If an independent news source disagrees with your presuppositions, argue how much harm it will do to Obama.
6) If a mainstream news source agrees with you, don't admit it's only Fox News.
Or I could be stating the truth.
Especially with number two! I quit worrying about getting the horses to drink years ago. As long as I can lead them to water I am happy!
Chuck Hagel is probably the only Republican that I would have considered voting for in this election cycle. He's a class act.
I like this quote from that link as it sums it up.
"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
I always wondered if the same logic made the mayor of Bellingham qualified in the same way. Again, I'm not a firm believer in the "experience argument", but I don't like to see anyone arguing from a false pretense of experience. This farce in particular always brings to mind something like the following scene.
<scene opens to bunch of guys (guy being gender neutral in this scene) around a table>
Guy 1: "How will we cover the fact she knows nothing about world affairs and has quotes that make her sound uninterest?"
<everyone looks dumbfounded. one of them is drumming his pencil on the desk.>
Guy 2: "Anyone around her got a map"
<someone pulls up Google Earth>
Guy 2: "See that?"
<no response>
Guy 2: "Oh, come one...where's Alaska?"
Guy 3: "Uh really frigging north."
Guy 2: "I mean, what can you see from Alaska?"
Guy 1: "Polar bears?"
Guy 2: "No! You can maybe see Russia. Wait, yes...if you go out to one of these tiny uninhabited islands you can definitely see a desolate Russian Island."
All Of Them: "Yes! Experience!!"
Chuck Hagel is probably the only Republican that I would have considered voting for in this election cycle. He's a class act.
I like this quote from that link as it sums it up.
"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
I always wondered if the same logic made the mayor of Bellingham qualified in the same way. Again, I'm not a firm believer in the "experience argument", but I don't like to see anyone arguing from a false pretense of experience. This farce in particular always brings to mind something like the following scene.
<scene opens to bunch of guys (guy being gender neutral in this scene) around a table>
Guy 1: "How will we cover the fact she knows nothing about world affairs and has quotes that make her sound uninterest?"
<everyone looks dumbfounded. one of them is drumming his pencil on the desk.>
Guy 2: "Anyone around her got a map"
<someone pulls up Google Earth>
Guy 2: "See that?"
<no response>
Guy 2: "Oh, come one...where's Alaska?"
Guy 3: "Uh really frigging north."
Guy 2: "I mean, what can you see from Alaska?"
Guy 1: "Polar bears?"
Guy 2: "No! You can maybe see Russia. Wait, yes...if you go out to one of these tiny uninhabited islands you can definitely see a desolate Russian Island."
All Of Them: "Yes! Experience!!"
Yeah, Lieberman was the only Democrat I would have considered.
The thing is, I've researched Palin. Based on my own political views and what I look for in a President, the only thing that could make me happier with this choice of four would be if Palin was on the top of the ticket and McCain was going for veep.
I was not going to vote until he chose her. Yeah, I'm one of those...
A lot of them are here too: Hillaryclintonforum.org.
BTW, the "look out the window and see Russia" thing is a joke! It's a good one too. I was in stitches when Tina Fey used it as well as when she did the "I dunno what the Bush doctrine is" thing as well. It was funny.
I am loving this election. Knowing the experience of the presidents we elected over the last century makes this "does she have the experience" thing high comedy, especially when you compare her to biden and Obama.
The whole experience thing is a farce and the Palin people know it. But it doesn't mean they can't have a little fun with it.
I believe the economy is going to be so bad in the next four years that I honestly am not very confident our country can survive it intact. I also believe that whichever party wins the top office will be villified in 2012. When crops are bad, you blame your leaders, no matter what. It's just the way it is.
IOW, I have no doubt the Republicans will sweep this election, but in the long run I am not too sure that will be good for the republicans. Normally I would say no great loss. I left the party a year ago and fully emotionally and intellectually became an independent. They had their chance controlling two (some would argue all three) branches of the government, and what did we get? More of the tax and spend and socialism I thought was the domain of the Democrats.
What changed my attitude was Palin. A true conservative the likes of which I have not seen in the party with any real power since Reagan. It made me a STRONG supporter of the republican ticket for president. But I am still independent. Both parties are far too left wing for me.
I am a "classic liberal". I believe in personal responsibility and that the government's job is not to make my life better, but to protect an environment that allows me to do the best I can with what I was born with, be it a silver Nordstrom spoon, or a crack baby in the CD.
I want the government to butt out of my life. Don't redistribute other peoples wealth to me, or my wealth to others. The law of giving and receiving is only a blessing if it is a direct relationship between the giver and receiver, and that both sides know that the giver gave of his own choice and volition. Anything else (like welfare, unemployment insurance, medicare, social security, et-al) is an abomination.
Using the "but, but, but three years later thing is disingenuous. Feel free to report it. It is outside of the scope of the claim she made.
Again, it is someone falling on the side of "foe" in my "friend or foe" test trying to make a tempest in a teapot.
Good luck with that.
No, she said that she was going to take a paycut, but that the budget was already set and she actually ended up getting more. Read the whole article.
An article in the same paper a week earlier shows Palin herself discussing the fact that she'd accepted the increase, albeit against her will:
The mayor's wage was increased from $64,000 to $68,000 in 1996, just before Sarah Palin was elected.
"I voted against it when I was a council member and I felt like a hypocrite when I came in and had to accept it," Palin said.
"Two and a half months after I was elected, the new resolution kicked in, but I took a pay cut down to $61,200. Then I had to accept the $68,000 since the last fiscal year started."
"Two and a half months after I was elected, the new resolution kicked in, but I took a pay cut down to $61,200. Then I had to accept the $68,000 since the last fiscal year started."
Adding insult to injury:
She couldn't hack the job of being mayor to a "city" of about 6,000 people, so she hired an assistant at an additional cost of (I hear) about $40,000 a year.
Let me repeat that so it sinks in. She was unable to handle the pressure of being a part-time mayor to a city almost half the size of Enumclaw, so she took the pay raise and then farmed out part of the work. She increased the cities budget by over 66% just in her position.
There's another question to ask here...why does the mayor of such a tiny city receive such a huge paycheck for what is really just a part-time role anyways? Comparing to Enumclaw again.
2.78.010 Mayor.
The salary of the mayor of the city is fixed at $1,000 per month, effective January 1, 1995, and to be paid from the current expense fund. (Ord. 1831 § 1, 1994; Ord. 1290 § 1, 1979; Ord. 1212 § 1, 1977; 1958 Code § 1.68.010).
So, the mayor of Enumclaw makes exactly $12k a year for the gig, but Palin and her assistant reaped about $108k a year to run a smaller town.
She is not a reformer. Charles is right, essentially every word she has spoken publicly is a lie. She is a compulsive liar.
Gourley, 27, was a teenager when Palin became Wasilla's mayor. "I just remember everybody saying, she's hot! Nobody had anything else to say," he said. "Even as a young kid, not knowing about politics, I was confused that that was all [people said] about her."
1) If a police officer had tasered you 10 year old child....Would you want him fired?
2) If a police officer that had Tasered you 10 year old child...and previously been disciplined for Drinking on duty had Threatened to Kill your Father-in-law while involved in a messy divorce with you wife's sister Would you want him fired?
3) If you were governor and one of the people who serves at your will (can be replaced by you for any reason) Would you put up with that person undermining your Budget cuts and holding secret meetings to get orders to defy your instructions and that person was openly INSUBORDINATE ....WOULD YOU FIRE HIM?
SARAH PALIN was attempting to buck a corrupt state government (Republican at that) she had to take control and DID....Has you man OBAMA ever bucked the liberal establishment in any meaningfull way?
Huh??? This is completely out of left field (I don't remember saying anything particularly strongly either way on this subject), and if I did it must have been over a week and a half ago...besides, I already said I wouldn't discuss this candidate until they did something worth discussing.
Gutless response to my orginal question....I am surprised you could not answer it...It is not that difficult....
Now to your comment...I think that every CEO and top exec who received 10s of millions from Fannie and Freddie mostly Bonus money based on Doctored Books should now 1) Be doing the perp walk 2) Should be making full restitution on their way to Jail.
Two of these people are the Top Economic advisors for Obama
Gutless response to my orginal question....I am surprised you could not answer it...It is not that difficult....
...
DO you agree or is it too tough a question?
Big Bad Mike,
Oh, I get it. It was actually a question...directed only at me and not any response to the troopergate issue. I really didn't understand you were asking a fresh question, so I apologize for misunderstanding. I'll answer your questions, all (four?) of them.
But first, you seem really angry. Have you considered counseling? I don't mean this in the stereotypical "you suck, go get counseling", but in a more serious tone.
1) If a police officer had tasered you 10 year old child....Would you want him fired?
Well, that's a dishonest question, isn't it? If a police officer grew angry with any 10 year old child and used a Taser on them, he should be punished and likely fired. But what if the officer were a Taser instructor, and what if the 10 year old was asking questions about Tasers because he thought they were "cool"? What if the instructor set up an ultra low voltage example in a safe environment just so the child could experience it? Here's the officer's account, which sounds pretty believable to me.
He said that he was a new Taser instructor, and his stepson was asking him about the equipment. "I didn't shoot him with live, you know, actual live cartridge," Wooten said.
Instead, he said, he hooked his stepson up to a training aid "with little clips. And, you know, the Taser was activated for less than a second, which would be less than what you would get if you touched an electric fence. ... It was as safe as I could possibly make it."
He said his stepson was on the living room floor surrounded by pillows, that he "was bragging about it," and that the family laughed about it.
Asked whether it was a dumb decision, Wooten told CNN, "absolutely."
It is common with non-lethal police equipment (Tasers, mace, rubber bullets) to make the officer learning about the equipment be subject to it. That way, they won't use it on a whim, because they'll realize just how much such force can hurt even if it's "safe". So long as the officer's story checks out, he should be reprimanded, but not fired for the Taser demonstration. I would think part of his reprimand should be retaking a Taser safety course.
2) If a police officer that had Tasered you 10 year old child...and previously been disciplined for Drinking on duty had Threatened to Kill your Father-in-law while involved in a messy divorce with you wife's sister Would you want him fired?
So...this is more than one question. I already dealt with Tasering. Drinking on duty is another matter. The officer should receive whatever the typical punishment for drinking while on duty is. If that's dismissal, then he should be fired. If it's docked pay and an alcohol awareness course, then that's what should happen. This, is of course entirely based on whether or not he did drink on duty. The problem is that it's just as difficult to take the Palin family's word on this as it is to take his word on it. So, if it's proven...then yes. Right now, they are doing an investigation, and I think that needs to be concluded before the story is finished.
The threat to the father should probably be dealt with in an entirely different way. Often, in heated emotion people say stuff they just don't mean, but if the family feels this is a real risk, they should seek a legal solution to keep the father and the trooper apart.
3) If you were governor and one of the people who serves at your will (can be replaced by you for any reason) Would you put up with that person undermining your Budget cuts and holding secret meetings to get orders to defy your instructions and that person was openly INSUBORDINATE ....WOULD YOU FIRE HIM?
I don't know. It really depends on what insubordination means (and no all caps doesn't make it any better or worse). If insubordination means releasing letters he wrote to her that advocated a position she vetoed or working publicly with state legislators to try to push through budget items he felt were important (two things he reportedly did) then no I would not fire him. I certainly would not do it as suddenly as Palin reportedly did, but would rather explain what behavior I found unacceptable (even if were above board and legal), and explain that I would replace him if it continued.
Now to your comment...I think that every CEO and top exec who received 10s of millions from Fannie and Freddie mostly Bonus money based on Doctored Books should now 1) Be doing the perp walk 2) Should be making full restitution on their way to Jail.
Two of these people are the Top Economic advisors for Obama
I mostly agree with this. Each of these CEOs should taken to court, and wrongdoing should be discovered. Anyone who doctored books clearly broke the law, and should see some real jail time. I'm not sure what you do to people who didn't break any laws, they were just reckless and they got wealthy by being reckless at the expense of everyone else. You can't convict anyone for that, and it's as much the boards faults as anything else. Could you please tell me who these two advisers are so I can decide what I actually think in this case?
I was not going to vote until he chose her. Yeah, I'm one of those...
...one of those...people who John McCain played like a fiddle? And I have it on authority he is not a very skilled fiddler. The republicans have decided there aren't enough people in the middle of the political spectrum to be worth going after. The worst thing that could happen to them, is a lot of way right people deciding to just not vote. And a lot of people fell for it...at least at first.
BTW, the "look out the window and see Russia" thing is a joke! It's a good one too.
This sounds like a classic move. You know when you say something you mean, like "this meatloaf is terrible", but then it hurts someone's feelings. Then you respond, "oh, I was just joking...you know I love your meatloaf." You weren't really joking, but you try to play it off that way. Yeah.
I was not going to vote until he chose her. Yeah, I'm one of those...
...one of those...people who John McCain played like a fiddle? And I have it on authority he is not a very skilled fiddler. The republicans have decided there aren't enough people in the middle of the political spectrum to be worth going after. The worst thing that could happen to them, is a lot of way right people deciding to just not vote. And a lot of people fell for it...at least at first.
BTW, the "look out the window and see Russia" thing is a joke! It's a good one too.
This sounds like a classic move. You know when you say something you mean, like "this meatloaf is terrible", but then it hurts someone's feelings. Then you respond, "oh, I was just joking...you know I love your meatloaf." You weren't really joking, but you try to play it off that way. Yeah.
Gutless response to my original question....I am surprised you could not answer it...It is not that difficult....
...
DO you agree or is it too tough a question?
Big Bad Mike,
Oh, I get it. It was actually a question...directed only at me and not any response to the troopergate issue. I really didn't understand you were asking a fresh question, so I apologize for misunderstanding. I'll answer your questions, all (four?) of them.
But first, you seem really angry. Have you considered counseling? I don't mean this in the stereotypical "you suck, go get counseling", but in a more serious tone.
1) If a police officer had tried you 10 year old child....Would you want him fired?
Well, that's a dishonest question, isn't it? If a police officer grew angry with any 10 year old child and used a Taser on them, he should be punished and likely fired. But what if the officer were a Taser instructor, and what if the 10 year old was asking questions about Tasers because he thought they were "cool"? What if the instructor set up an ultra low voltage example in a safe environment just so the child could experience it? Here's the officer's account, which sounds pretty believable to me.
He said that he was a new Taser instructor, and his stepson was asking him about the equipment. "I didn't shoot him with live, you know, actual live cartridge," Wooten said.
Instead, he said, he hooked his stepson up to a training aid "with little clips. And, you know, the Taser was activated for less than a second, which would be less than what you would get if you touched an electric fence. ... It was as safe as I could possibly make it."
He said his stepson was on the living room floor surrounded by pillows, that he "was bragging about it," and that the family laughed about it.
Asked whether it was a dumb decision, Wooten told CNN, "absolutely."
It is common with non-lethal police equipment (Tasers, mace, rubber bullets) to make the officer learning about the equipment be subject to it. That way, they won't use it on a whim, because they'll realize just how much such force can hurt even if it's "safe". So long as the officer's story checks out, he should be reprimanded, but not fired for the Taser demonstration. I would think part of his reprimand should be retaking a Taser safety course.
2) If a police officer that had Tried you 10 year old child...and previously been disciplined for Drinking on duty had Threatened to Kill your Father-in-law while involved in a messy divorce with you wife's sister Would you want him fired?
So...this is more than one question. I already dealt with Tasering. Drinking on duty is another matter. The officer should receive whatever the typical punishment for drinking while on duty is. If that's dismissal, then he should be fired. If it's docked pay and an alcohol awareness course, then that's what should happen. This, is of course entirely based on whether or not he did drink on duty. The problem is that it's just as difficult to take the Palin family's word on this as it is to take his word on it. So, if it's proven...then yes. Right now, they are doing an investigation, and I think that needs to be concluded before the story is finished.
The threat to the father should probably be dealt with in an entirely different way. Often, in heated emotion people say stuff they just don't mean, but if the family feels this is a real risk, they should seek a legal solution to keep the father and the trooper apart.
3) If you were governor and one of the people who serves at your will (can be replaced by you for any reason) Would you put up with that person undermining your Budget cuts and holding secret meetings to get orders to defy your instructions and that person was openly INSUBORDINATE ....WOULD YOU FIRE HIM?
I don't know. It really depends on what insubordination means (and no all caps doesn't make it any better or worse). If insubordination means releasing letters he wrote to her that advocated a position she vetoed or working publicly with state legislators to try to push through budget items he felt were important (two things he reportedly did) then no I would not fire him. I certainly would not do it as suddenly as Plain reportedly did, but would rather explain what behavior I found unacceptable (even if were above board and legal), and explain that I would replace him if it continued.
Now to your comment...I think that every CEO and top exec who received 10s of millions from Fannie and Freddie mostly Bonus money based on Doctored Books should now 1) Be doing the perp walk 2) Should be making full restitution on their way to Jail.
Two of these people are the Top Economic advisors for Obama
I mostly agree with this. Each of these CEOs should taken to court, and wrongdoing should be discovered. Anyone who doctored books clearly broke the law, and should see some real jail time. I'm not sure what you do to people who didn't break any laws, they were just reckless and they got wealthy by being reckless at the expense of everyone else. You can't convict anyone for that, and it's as much the boards faults as anything else. Could you please tell me who these two advisers are so I can decide what I actually think in this case?
ROSE:
you sound like a VERY responsible person....With a good sense of right and wrong...I will never understand some adults...A taser kid..Drinking in his squad car no less...and a man legally allowed to carry a guy threatening to murder someone
AND YOU MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIM???????????????????????
As to the guy that she fired...She really didn't fire him she offered him another position and he refused it and choose to retire....His actions were well documented with a paper trail and witnesses. But that isn't even the point ....the point is that she had every right to ask for his resignation as he servered at her pleasure ....It was her right as Gov. to put someone else in that position.
It was wrong of me to lead you astray on that one....I wanted to see how much of the Liberal KoolAid you had....Lots it seems
Comments
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17/th ... l-hacking/
This Palin email thing is gonna explode in the Obama camp's faces even though there is no evidence they had ANYTHING to do with it. I guess it is the old axiom: If you lie down with dogs, yer gonna get u with fleas.
Read the account by Rubico. Simply amazing.
Americans have a natural propensity to come to the aid/defense/support of a victim. This could not have played better in Palins favor if she had orchestrated it herself, which is absurdly unlikely.
It makes you want to believe there IS a God!
'Course, I already do. 8)
Now, this is a Palin story actually worth commenting on, as it's not actually a story about Palin at all.
Couple thoughts here. 1) Palin showed questionable judgment using a private address for public purposes. 2) The hackers showed even poorer judgment doing this. 3) It sounds like the Secret Service or FBI may get involved. 4) This is just one more ugly thing to happen to/with Palin. 5) This won't harm Obama as his campaign clearly had nothing to do with it. 6) When investigations find the perpetrators, #5 will be validated.
Net result: it's too bad this happened, but it will actually harm Palin. Robroy is right that American's support victims, but only up to a point. If someone is abused by their spouse once (or a couple times) we console them. If it has happened 100 times we ask why they didn't leave after the first couple.
Palin has about used up her victim card, I'm starting to see people grow tired of it. At this point, each revelation like this harms her. And the election is still 2 months off. By November, people won't really remember what all the fuss was about but they'll have some lingering doubts over her because of how many negative news cycles her name has been linked to (even if she was innocent or victim in the actual stories).
I think if it is true, then it's not trivial. Why lie about anything at all when these things get tracked by every website? Do you just think it's OK to lie when it suits you? Also someone who is willing to lie about small things is usually willing to lie about big things.
Sure, this story is small potatoes, and I meant it in fun. But still, why would you lie about something like that? There's no point.
And on the email hack, I think it'll be worse for Palin for the same reasons rose said. Obama's people had nothing to do with it. Hacker kids thought it woudl be funny and now they're going to be brought up on federal charges. Stupid them. It makes her look dumb for using a private email for government business. Something as unsecure as Yahoo.
I also like what the aledged hacker said:
You do have a point here; It makes her look, to the electorate, like a helpless victim to an attempted public rape. I don't think it will harm Obama's campaign directly, but I think it will help McCain/Palin, which indirectly hurts Obama's campaign.
I don't think there can be too many dirty tricks (and that is what this is). And it does not matter where they come from. After a while some of the people that really don't care that much who gets elected will just vote for her to get even with the constant attackers. The psychology of supporting the underdog is interesting. If the underdog is there because it is all self inflicted, that's one thing, but if it is due to meanness (think "The Mighty Ducks"), the voters will never be numbed by "too many" dirty tricks.
And with the explosion of use of the internet, dirty tricks become vetted as such remarkably rapidly.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tmare.html
"A pistol-packin' Looby Loo: the Left's worst nightmare"
Read it again. He didn't find anything incriminating, but he did find "some clerical stuff from when she was governor". She used the account for public business. There is good reason to believe that she discussed this with her advisers as a way to make some emails un-subpoena-able. So, he didn't find anything. The entire practice still exhibits either questionable judgment (why expose her personal life to her public?) or questionable morals (why attempt to hide some emails?). I gave her the benefit of the doubt that it was more mistake and less sneaky, but regardless the events surrounding this do her no favors.
Terrible analogy. When sports teams play, I love to root for the underdog (if I don't already have a favorite involved). I think it would be really cool if the Pirates won the World Series for example because they are so awful. But we aren't talking about sports team here, we're talking about real world and electing people who will have real impacts on our lives.
People will do what's best for themselves. Extreme example, but let's say someone time-traveled from the future and said, "If you elect McCain we go into a depression and if you elect Obama the economy will grow by 10% annual." With verifiable news like that, Obama himself could actually hit Palin in the knee with a bat, and break McCain's hands and he would still win handedly. Everyone just wants a better life for themselves, and pretending that Palin looking bad is going to change that is naive.
The republicans run a huge risk as each of these stories prevents them from telling stories about how they are going to make things better for us, and it's starting to show up in the polls. The latest poll of polls show Obama strengthening again (up 4 pts from last time and leading overall again).
And what does that mean? Do you realize it could LITERALLY mean scheduling an office picnic? It could be clerical stuff from campaigning. It could have been talking about picking up her car from the shop during lunch "while she was governor".
What it means is that a guy who was LOOKING FOR DIRT found nothing. That statement has nothing in the context of his comments to support it as some sort of smoking gun and everything in his other words to support that it was NOTHING.
With nothing else to support it, it IS nothing. It is as though the statement was not made. Clerical stuff?! You crack me up! No she didn't. That will be my position until I see actual evidence to the contrary. I would certainly hope so! That is what any responsible adult in a political office would do. Although I must admit I am not sure what you mean by "this".
That entire statement is speculation and there is no evidence to support it. That is, unless you are trying to say that the very fact that she had a personal email address was itself irresponsible.
That won't get you far with most people. It is like saying someone is an unsafe driver for not wearing a helmet in their car. The problem is that your position does not pass the "reasonableness" test. I don't see a mistake or sneakyness here. I see a person who had their personal email hacked. And the hacker, by his own admission, was seriously disappointed that he could not find anything incriminating. But apparently your standards are lower than his ("clerical stuff"). That one is still cracking me up.
You make the case for my analogy. I said, "If the underdog is there because it is all self inflicted, that's one thing, but if it is due to meanness...". "Awful" means "self inflicted. She can be perceived as the underdog not due to self inflicted damage, but because of corrupt or biased referees - to further the sports example.
Tell me, have you ever watched a game where you thought the referees were biased? I have, and sometimes blatantly so. And I start SERIOUSLY rooting for the team they seem to have it out for. It is easy for me to do this because I am not a sports fan. On the rare occasion where I watch a basketball game to "be with the guys", I couldn't care less who wins the game. However, I have strongly sided with a team when I think the refs have it out for them. Same will happen with swing voters regarding McCain/Palin and this sort of thing. I agree, assuming it was reasonable to believe he really was from the future - and telling the truth.
Senator Obama talks a tough game on the financial markets but the facts tell a different story. He took more money from Fannie and Freddie than any Senator but the Democratic chairman of the committee that regulates them. He put Fannie Mae's CEO who helped create this disaster in charge of finding his Vice President. Fannie's former General Counsel is a senior advisor to his campaign. Whose side do you think he is on? When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn't lift a hand to avert this crisis. While the leaders of Fannie and Freddie were lining the pockets of his campaign, they were sowing the seeds of the financial crisis we see today and enriching themselves with millions of dollars in payments. That's not change, that's what's broken in Washington.
BTW, that money from F&F statement is absolutely true. It is very damning considering he rose to second place while being in the senate for such a short time.
And don't forget this: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1834
This is not preventing the republicans from telling stories about how they are going to make things better for us. This is just another front, and one the republicans are winning on, handily.
As information makes itself available, this is getting more and more exciting!
It is looking like they really need to lay off Palin, or continue on at their own peril.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/ ... state.html
Wow! You're right. If a politician's child does something that their parent might not agree with, like Dem. Rep. Mike Kernell, we should blame the parentBarak Obama.
Is Barak Obama therefore also to blame for Bristol's pregnancy?
None of this matters, it's all sideshows and at best it just sullies Palin's name a little bit more.
I never suggested the emails contained dirt. The reports contradict that assertion, and I accept the facts as they are. Further, I never suggested that it even mattered. The only reason anyone tried to hack that account is because she was allegedly using Rovian tactics to hide damaging email records.
And, surprise, surprise, all the bad press is beginning to dull the Palin name.
But then, a 12% swing in unfavorability in just a wek is no biggie. If she keeps it up, she'll still be viewed more favorably than not by next Tuesday. On the bright side, 30 Rock will be on again soon, and if Tina Fey is funny enough people might forget they are different people.
Actually, it does matter and it is not sullying her name.
That's just a hit piece. I also side with the strategy listed here. I like to think of my conversations as private. It offends me that if I say something to someone across a cube wall it is private, but if I IM the same person it can be used against me in a court of law. I would love that it were not so.
There is the old phrase, "Never write down what you can say. Never say what you can whisper. Never whisper what you can nod. Never nod what you can wink. And never wink what you can smile. Do you think politicians are being devious if they refuse to make audio recordings of their meetings? I'll get fired for it if I attempt to do it where I work, even with everyone's consent.
Hahaha! More silly polls. This may give you a good education on this kind of poll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4 That thing on SNL was absolutely hilarious! I showed it to all my friends.
Polls are good for entertainment.
Today's course is a study in the Robroy approach to filtering news stories.
1) If you don't like the results of some numeric process, mock it.
2) If you like the results of a numeric process, say how much "fun it is"...repeatedly.
3) If a news source agrees with your presuppositions and is small (blog, YouTube video, etc) point out how independent it is.
4) If a reliable news source disagrees with your presuppositions, point out how "biased" it is (without defining what biased news means).
5) If an independent news source disagrees with your presuppositions, argue how much harm it will do to Obama.
6) If a mainstream news source agrees with you, don't admit it's only Fox News.
Especially with number two! I quit worrying about getting the horses to drink years ago. As long as I can lead them to water I am happy!
And yes, this is still a blast!
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2 ... d=10435997
Chuck Hagel is probably the only Republican that I would have considered voting for in this election cycle. He's a class act.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoints ... pay_cu.php
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5715.html
I often judge people by their enemies.
I like this quote from that link as it sums it up.
I always wondered if the same logic made the mayor of Bellingham qualified in the same way. Again, I'm not a firm believer in the "experience argument", but I don't like to see anyone arguing from a false pretense of experience. This farce in particular always brings to mind something like the following scene.
<scene opens to bunch of guys (guy being gender neutral in this scene) around a table>
Guy 1: "How will we cover the fact she knows nothing about world affairs and has quotes that make her sound uninterest?"
<everyone looks dumbfounded. one of them is drumming his pencil on the desk.>
Guy 2: "Anyone around her got a map"
<someone pulls up Google Earth>
Guy 2: "See that?"
<no response>
Guy 2: "Oh, come one...where's Alaska?"
Guy 3: "Uh really frigging north."
Guy 2: "I mean, what can you see from Alaska?"
Guy 1: "Polar bears?"
Guy 2: "No! You can maybe see Russia. Wait, yes...if you go out to one of these tiny uninhabited islands you can definitely see a desolate Russian Island."
All Of Them: "Yes! Experience!!"
The thing is, I've researched Palin. Based on my own political views and what I look for in a President, the only thing that could make me happier with this choice of four would be if Palin was on the top of the ticket and McCain was going for veep.
I was not going to vote until he chose her. Yeah, I'm one of those...
A lot of them are here too: Hillaryclintonforum.org.
BTW, the "look out the window and see Russia" thing is a joke! It's a good one too. I was in stitches when Tina Fey used it as well as when she did the "I dunno what the Bush doctrine is" thing as well. It was funny.
I am loving this election. Knowing the experience of the presidents we elected over the last century makes this "does she have the experience" thing high comedy, especially when you compare her to biden and Obama.
The whole experience thing is a farce and the Palin people know it. But it doesn't mean they can't have a little fun with it.
Life is good!
The whole article is "fun with numbers".
Did she take a pay cut. Yes.
Using the "but, but, but three years later thing is disingenuous. Feel free to report it. It is outside of the scope of the claim she made.
Again, it is someone falling on the side of "foe" in my "friend or foe" test trying to make a tempest in a teapot.
Good luck with that.
I believe the economy is going to be so bad in the next four years that I honestly am not very confident our country can survive it intact. I also believe that whichever party wins the top office will be villified in 2012. When crops are bad, you blame your leaders, no matter what. It's just the way it is.
IOW, I have no doubt the Republicans will sweep this election, but in the long run I am not too sure that will be good for the republicans. Normally I would say no great loss. I left the party a year ago and fully emotionally and intellectually became an independent. They had their chance controlling two (some would argue all three) branches of the government, and what did we get? More of the tax and spend and socialism I thought was the domain of the Democrats.
What changed my attitude was Palin. A true conservative the likes of which I have not seen in the party with any real power since Reagan. It made me a STRONG supporter of the republican ticket for president. But I am still independent. Both parties are far too left wing for me.
I am a "classic liberal". I believe in personal responsibility and that the government's job is not to make my life better, but to protect an environment that allows me to do the best I can with what I was born with, be it a silver Nordstrom spoon, or a crack baby in the CD.
I want the government to butt out of my life. Don't redistribute other peoples wealth to me, or my wealth to others. The law of giving and receiving is only a blessing if it is a direct relationship between the giver and receiver, and that both sides know that the giver gave of his own choice and volition. Anything else (like welfare, unemployment insurance, medicare, social security, et-al) is an abomination.
I like Palin though. She is a good compromise.
I think Lieberman is a class act though.
No, she said that she was going to take a paycut, but that the budget was already set and she actually ended up getting more. Read the whole article.
An article in the same paper a week earlier shows Palin herself discussing the fact that she'd accepted the increase, albeit against her will:
The mayor's wage was increased from $64,000 to $68,000 in 1996, just before Sarah Palin was elected.
"I voted against it when I was a council member and I felt like a hypocrite when I came in and had to accept it," Palin said.
"Two and a half months after I was elected, the new resolution kicked in, but I took a pay cut down to $61,200. Then I had to accept the $68,000 since the last fiscal year started."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMb7-RKvbF0
Adding insult to injury:
She couldn't hack the job of being mayor to a "city" of about 6,000 people, so she hired an assistant at an additional cost of (I hear) about $40,000 a year.
Let me repeat that so it sinks in. She was unable to handle the pressure of being a part-time mayor to a city almost half the size of Enumclaw, so she took the pay raise and then farmed out part of the work. She increased the cities budget by over 66% just in her position.
There's another question to ask here...why does the mayor of such a tiny city receive such a huge paycheck for what is really just a part-time role anyways? Comparing to Enumclaw again.
2.78.010 Mayor.
So, the mayor of Enumclaw makes exactly $12k a year for the gig, but Palin and her assistant reaped about $108k a year to run a smaller town.
She is not a reformer. Charles is right, essentially every word she has spoken publicly is a lie. She is a compulsive liar.
Here's something fun I found this morning to leave you with.
Gutless response to my orginal question....I am surprised you could not answer it...It is not that difficult....
Now to your comment...I think that every CEO and top exec who received 10s of millions from Fannie and Freddie mostly Bonus money based on Doctored Books should now 1) Be doing the perp walk 2) Should be making full restitution on their way to Jail.
Two of these people are the Top Economic advisors for Obama
DO you agree or is it too tough a question?
Big Bad Mike,
Oh, I get it. It was actually a question...directed only at me and not any response to the troopergate issue. I really didn't understand you were asking a fresh question, so I apologize for misunderstanding. I'll answer your questions, all (four?) of them.
But first, you seem really angry. Have you considered counseling? I don't mean this in the stereotypical "you suck, go get counseling", but in a more serious tone.
To the questions.
Well, that's a dishonest question, isn't it? If a police officer grew angry with any 10 year old child and used a Taser on them, he should be punished and likely fired. But what if the officer were a Taser instructor, and what if the 10 year old was asking questions about Tasers because he thought they were "cool"? What if the instructor set up an ultra low voltage example in a safe environment just so the child could experience it? Here's the officer's account, which sounds pretty believable to me.
It is common with non-lethal police equipment (Tasers, mace, rubber bullets) to make the officer learning about the equipment be subject to it. That way, they won't use it on a whim, because they'll realize just how much such force can hurt even if it's "safe". So long as the officer's story checks out, he should be reprimanded, but not fired for the Taser demonstration. I would think part of his reprimand should be retaking a Taser safety course.
So...this is more than one question. I already dealt with Tasering. Drinking on duty is another matter. The officer should receive whatever the typical punishment for drinking while on duty is. If that's dismissal, then he should be fired. If it's docked pay and an alcohol awareness course, then that's what should happen. This, is of course entirely based on whether or not he did drink on duty. The problem is that it's just as difficult to take the Palin family's word on this as it is to take his word on it. So, if it's proven...then yes. Right now, they are doing an investigation, and I think that needs to be concluded before the story is finished.
The threat to the father should probably be dealt with in an entirely different way. Often, in heated emotion people say stuff they just don't mean, but if the family feels this is a real risk, they should seek a legal solution to keep the father and the trooper apart.
I don't know. It really depends on what insubordination means (and no all caps doesn't make it any better or worse). If insubordination means releasing letters he wrote to her that advocated a position she vetoed or working publicly with state legislators to try to push through budget items he felt were important (two things he reportedly did) then no I would not fire him. I certainly would not do it as suddenly as Palin reportedly did, but would rather explain what behavior I found unacceptable (even if were above board and legal), and explain that I would replace him if it continued.
I mostly agree with this. Each of these CEOs should taken to court, and wrongdoing should be discovered. Anyone who doctored books clearly broke the law, and should see some real jail time. I'm not sure what you do to people who didn't break any laws, they were just reckless and they got wealthy by being reckless at the expense of everyone else. You can't convict anyone for that, and it's as much the boards faults as anything else. Could you please tell me who these two advisers are so I can decide what I actually think in this case?
...one of those...people who John McCain played like a fiddle? And I have it on authority he is not a very skilled fiddler. The republicans have decided there aren't enough people in the middle of the political spectrum to be worth going after. The worst thing that could happen to them, is a lot of way right people deciding to just not vote. And a lot of people fell for it...at least at first.
This sounds like a classic move. You know when you say something you mean, like "this meatloaf is terrible", but then it hurts someone's feelings. Then you respond, "oh, I was just joking...you know I love your meatloaf." You weren't really joking, but you try to play it off that way. Yeah.
ROSE:
you sound like a VERY responsible person....With a good sense of right and wrong...I will never understand some adults...A taser kid..Drinking in his squad car no less...and a man legally allowed to carry a guy threatening to murder someone
AND YOU MAKE EXCUSES FOR HIM???????????????????????
As to the guy that she fired...She really didn't fire him she offered him another position and he refused it and choose to retire....His actions were well documented with a paper trail and witnesses. But that isn't even the point ....the point is that she had every right to ask for his resignation as he servered at her pleasure ....It was her right as Gov. to put someone else in that position.
It was wrong of me to lead you astray on that one....I wanted to see how much of the Liberal KoolAid you had....Lots it seems