Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Fate of Alaska's Joan of Arc



I would like to offer my thoughts on these insane ethics complaints.

They're very easy to understand when you read Rule #4 of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals":

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

Sarah Palin is a genuine ethics reformer, so they are trying to destroy her with frivolous ethics complaints.

I noted in my biographical sketch on Palin a comment that John Ziegler made about her in an interview with LaDonna Hale Curzon:

The only thing I would say about [Sarah Palin] -- and she acknowledges this twice in my interview -- is that she's a little bit on the naïve side... probably not so much anymore, but... I think that people are naïve either because they're stupid, which clearly she's not, or because they are a good person and they just can't understand how much evil is potentially possible in others.

In this weakness she is like Reagan, whose son described him as a guy "who always thinks the best of people" and can't imagine that they would stab him in the back. Neither can Sarah Palin.

In her inaugural address as governor, Palin told her fellow Alaskans to "hold her accountable." She meant it in all sincerity.

She has spent less in personal expenses than her predecessors. She has managed the state budget more responsibly. She put an end to backroom deal-making with oil producers and initiated an open and transparent process for establishing a fair return on Alaska's resources and developing a natural gas pipeline that is not beholden to any monopoly interest. She wanted them to hold her accountable because she knew that she could meet any fair final accounting.

But she didn't anticipate the base motives of vindictive evil people. Yes, it is evil to try to bankrupt a family, to smear their names, to chase an honest reformer out of office.

And for what? What are your ideological differences with her? Do you disagree with her on AGIA? ACES? The pipeline? Abortion? What?

And where were your voices when your state was rife with real political corruption? Where were you when your politicians were taking bribes? Where were you when Sarah Palin put her reputation and her livelihood on the line to take a stand against the corruption she saw?

I would like to see one of these "brave" crusading ankle-biters risk their livelihoods to "take a stand" on these ethics complaints. It's awfully easy to play Joan of Arc when you have nothing to lose.

Sarah Palin took a stand when she had everything to lose. When she walked out of the AOGCC and blew the whistle on her own party's chair, there was no guarantee that she would ever work in the public sector again. In fact, it was all but certain that she would never work for any Republican administration again. And who would hire her in the private sector? You cross swords with a powerful man, and you make a lot of enemies.

She walked out on her first big six figure job. I'm sure she and her husband were counting on that income to support a family with four kids. She went back to being a full-time hockey mom, but she wanted to work. In a June 2005 interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Palin explained the business license she set up in the hopes of doing some consulting work:

"Rouge Cou, it's a classy way of saying redneck. It's a French word, rouge is red, cou is neck. It's for marketing and consulting, in case I wanted to go that route, I'd have my ducks all lined up and have a business license.... I would like to, with some of the endeavors that I have going on right now, there comes a time when one desires to be paid for them!"

She doesn't appear to have ever gotten paid for them. There were consequences for her when she decided to "take a stand."

Where were all of these "brave" ethics reformers at that time? What did they have to say about Sarah Palin back then? Did they take a stand with her?

Prior to 2008, the general attitude of people in the Lower 48 to Alaskans was one of amused disdain. They viewed Ted Stevens' histrionics over the Bridge to Nowhere and the dozens of crooked politicians being frog-marched out of Juneau by the FBI as indicative of a state full of laughable pork-fat children who were incapable of governing themselves.

Sarah Palin turned Alaska around. She brought integrity and transparency back to state government. She made Alaska an object of respect among conservatives, instead of derision.

And this is how Alaskans repaid her? Shame on all of them if they let this stand. If Alaskans don't rise up and take a stand for this woman who took a stand for them, then they deserve the disdain the rest of the country once felt for them.

When the ADN and others refer to Sarah Palin as Alaska's Joan of Arc, they never seem to remember that the real Joan of Arc was betrayed by her own countrymen, sold to her enemies, abandoned to her fate, and burned at the stake.

I wonder if Alaskans will do the same to theirs.

71 comments:

upinak April 28, 2009 4:26 PM  

Not I.

I am swamped with people asking to help.

I appreciate anyone (Conservative OR Liberal) who are tired of these Ethics Complaints... that all make Alaska and Alaskans look petty and stupid, to take a stand with me!

Ram, please put my email address up for those Alaskans and those who just want to say they support from outside Alaska.

HelpingPalin@gmail.com

Thanks to all who are truely tired of the frivolous claims and want to take a stand against it!

Emerson C April 28, 2009 4:28 PM  

I seem to recall that Alinski believed that the undermining of a targeted person or institution came about, not so much through the actions of the radical, but from the "reactions" of the targeted victim. (I can't find the exact reference as it would mean going through his dreary tome). My point is: don't react as expected. Do something surprising and different.

Alinsky epitomized the moral bankruptcy of the "New Left".

DB April 28, 2009 4:35 PM  

R. A. Mansour should be President Palin's speechwriter in 2013! Great piece RA, as always.

AKReport April 28, 2009 4:40 PM  

Alaskans are tired of the basless attacks, and it is already starting to backfire.

AKReport April 28, 2009 4:48 PM  

We need to email

Beck,Greta to take on these bogus complaints.

R. A can you get their Email address posted in your next thread.

its time to take action

section9 April 28, 2009 4:50 PM  

Of course it will backfire. Reagan was best at this. He would react to these kind of attacks with bemused contempt mixed with pity.

Understand that there are people so obsessed with the victory of "their side" in politics that they have little left in life for anything else.

And yes, of course these people were silent during the Murkowski era. There was no David Axelrod around to point them in the right direction.

Palin is a strong woman. She'll be fine.

Rosie April 28, 2009 4:58 PM  

Most Alaskan support Sarah. She still has high aprPoval rating

Patty Hewes April 28, 2009 5:04 PM  

You have a hard time understanding that when the investigation became political she decided to move the investigation to the appropriate ethics board.

I think the most insane ethics complaint filed against the Governor would be the one were she posted on the state's website that she was running for vice president.

What's even more insane about this ethics complaint is that it was filed in march. That should tell you that they are finding anything in order to bankrupt her or discourage her from running for reelection.

Al B. April 28, 2009 5:05 PM  

I always enjoy reading your wonderful writing RAM. Great job as always and thanks for your passion for the Guv.

Al

Patty Hewes April 28, 2009 5:07 PM  

You are right about that Rosie. At this point Palin's enjoying an above 60 percent favorability rating. One of her foes even commissioned a poll to see if anyone can beat the Governor for election, well the poll conclude that no one on the list could beat Palin.

wisetrog April 28, 2009 5:08 PM  

The essence of progressivism is hatred of good being the good. Someone is honest, force them to lie or cheat. Someone is good, force them to do evil. Someone is chaste, deflower them.Someone is not corrupt, make sure they pay a lot for it.

Curiously, these muckrakers will never do the same stuff to corrupt, party establishments. Their hackles are raised whenever somebody exceptional rises; they want to beat that person down to conformity.

Greg April 28, 2009 5:13 PM  

Whenever I see Gov. Palin on TV or on the internet, she looks completely relaxed, and cheerful, sometimes a little tired, but that's to be expected. To me she exhibits a great, quiet, inner strength. She is truly a woman of destiny. She's stronger than all these pesky anklebiters combined.

She has a lot of supporters here in the lower 48 as any of us can testify. I believe one of the reasons she put a $150 limit on donations to AFT is because she knew she could raise that amount with small donations.

Although I can't actually do anything up there in Alaska, I can offer moral support from Minnesota. Naturally, I donated the $150 max to AFT, and continue to donate to SarahPAC as well.

Rosie April 28, 2009 5:13 PM  

So Paul and Publius agree with Celtic Diva filing a Ethic Complaint against Sarah for wearing a jacket?

ugafish April 28, 2009 5:14 PM  

Because the legislative investigation had become politically charged, she introduced the matter to the personnel board which is proper jurisdiction under the law. The independent investigator found that she did nothing wrong.

"Contrary to some press reports suggesting that the Governor's attempt to "file on herself" was some sort of clever ruse, such a view materially misconstrues one of the purposes of the Ethics Act. AS 39.52.210 directly allows for, and encourages, public officials to ask the Board for guidance as to whether their conduct, contemplated or already taken, violates the Act. No negative connotation should be taken from this filing since public officials should be encouraged to seek such guidance. One of the duties of the Board, by statute, is to provide timely response to such requests and it should endeavor to do so."

-Timothy J. Petumenos, Independent Counsel to the Peronnel Board

ugafish April 28, 2009 5:15 PM  

So you see, she did not file an ethics complaint against herself.

Wasserjungen April 28, 2009 5:18 PM  

I think that Sarah is the freshest of breaths of fresh air to hit the political spectrum in decades but PLEASE stop comparing her to the Maid of Orleans who was betrayed by her countrymen to the British and burned at the stake as a heretic. I REALLY don't want Sarah sacrificed by the Neo-Cons or any other segment of our party. We need her and anyone else like her way too much.

DB April 28, 2009 5:20 PM  

Paul and Pubicus and Trig Truthers.

TommyReport April 28, 2009 5:23 PM  

Update on the stimulus:

http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1792

http://www.newsminer.com/weblogs/dermot-cole/2009/apr/28/governor-acknowledges-legislative-action-on-stimulus-money-but-doesnt-say-whether-she-approves-it-or-will-veto/

"It appears that the governor has accepted $929 million of the federal stimulus money, while rejecting $28.6 million. The money was rejected because it would have required the state to adopt energy efficiency standards for buildings.

I asked the governor's office for a clarification about whether she supports the action by the Legislature or if she will use her veto power.

I was informed that the governor is accepting all of the stimulus money except for $28.6 million that was "tied to adopting a statewide energy code."

The money would have been divided between the Alaska Energy Authority and the Alaska Housing Finance Corp. for energy efficiency work.

The governor said that "Mandating uniuversal energy building codes throughout our state is not in Alaskans' common or individual interests."

The federal stipulation in question said that the "state or applicable local government that has authority to adopt building codes will adopt residential codes that exceed the most recently published International Energy Conservation Code or achieves equivalent/greater savings."

techno April 28, 2009 5:29 PM  

What part of Joan of Arc's biography is the most appealing to you?

1)that she was a young passionate religious girl that had the courage of her convictions

2)that she led armies of men into battle

3)that she became a Roman Catholic saint

4)that she was martyred and burned at the stake as a heretic

5)that she still remembered 600 years later

TommyReport April 28, 2009 5:30 PM  

Techno,

(2) in my opinion.

Any thoughts on Specter? I don't recall you leaving any comments on that...

wisetrog April 28, 2009 5:32 PM  

Campaign Spot has a bit more:

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmQ2NTc0ODEwMmQwZDhlODU2MGMyZWE5MjAyM2VkYzA=

So, Sarah gave in, didn't she? Second disappointment in a row. We'll see what Sanford does now.

ugafish April 28, 2009 5:38 PM  

Tommy,
I agree with what she did. The legislature represents the people, so she can't ignore the process that they went through. Now that the public knows that these are one time funds, she will do her part to make sure that the moeny does not grow govt. She said, "And now I must make sure that, by applying for funds that they’ve resolved to accept, we do not grow government but instead put people to work and grow Alaska’s private-sector economy.”

wisetrog April 28, 2009 5:42 PM  

I am frankly disappointed. She's a governor who holds veto and she can and should ignore legislature if they've acted in bad faith. She should have put up a token fight, at least. Instead, her efforts have been pretty marginal. She caved completely.

I think she is not in the running for 2012. If she did, this was one issue which would have raised her profile within the GOP. We'll see.

Just Sayin April 28, 2009 5:42 PM  

See I told you guys! Every Governor in America has to take the money...there is no rejecting A without B. Period.

Sanford Jindal etc all of them will have to take it in the end. This is why it was soo important for folks to fight this in Congress because its too late to do anything now.

The next step Sarah could do is to simply not request certain monies and take it on a case by case basis within each department.

DB April 28, 2009 5:49 PM  

Wisetrog,
I think you're being a bit harsh here! In the end all the governors will take the money. She made her point about not being in favor of it but the legislature holds the purse strings. I trust her judgement on this as I said in another thread yesterday. She had to acccept part A in order to get part B of the education funds. My guess is the $28.6 million she rejected will be larger, in terms of percentage of the total, than any other GOP governor. Give her a break!

ugafish April 28, 2009 5:51 PM  

wise,
Chill out. The legislature represents the people that elected them, and they spoke loud and clear. She's not a dictator, and she made it clear that the state will not pick up the tab once the stimulus runs out. The entire stimulus was rigged to make sure that the states take the money. She rejected the portion that would mandate the building code changes, and will make sure that govt does not grow once the money runs out.

upinak April 28, 2009 5:52 PM  

Concerned...

I don't remember if you are a supposed Alaskan, but you don't think it is embarrassing that these frivolous ehtics complaints keep coming up? Sarah did the ethic complaint on hersuef due to personal matter ... as it should have NEVER been addressed to the State of Alaska, yet someone brought it to them.

I am embarrased to call these people Alaskans in any sense of the word.

wisetrog April 28, 2009 5:52 PM  

DB, as I've said, we'll see. There maybe all kind of pragmatic reasons to accept these tainted monies but I wanted to find a leader who'd have the courage to reject and take a stand. She hasn't. I guess, it'll take some time for me to get over my disappointment but right now, I feel very blue.

Autumn April 28, 2009 5:53 PM  

i was looking at the vintage website the Guv had for governor and one line is my favorite off her bio page. its the very last line.

"Sarah is an enthusiastic hockey mom. Way too enthusiastic."

Thats our Sarah!

R. A. Mansour April 28, 2009 5:58 PM  

This website is called Conservatives 4 Palin. If you would like to start a website called "Moderates Against Palin," please feel free to do so. Otherwise, leave.

Ennealogic April 28, 2009 6:00 PM  

I would appreciate very much someone who is knowledgeable about the "bankrupting" of the Palins to provide some information:

1) The figure of $500,000+ in legal fees: how was this incurred? I'm guessing these fees relate almost entirely to the Monegan-Wooten scandal, and only after VP Candidate Palin was advised by the McCain folks to say nothing to anybody without her own lawyers to run interference. But it would be nice to know the breakdown on this figure. Anyone here know?

2) How does it cost Governor Palin anything when someone files an ethics complaint against her? An ethics complaint isn't a lawsuit. She doesn't have to go to court. Doesn't the complaint get reviewed by the AG and then either thrown out or given to the Personnel Board for investigation? And isn't that investigation part of the job that the Board is paid for (by the state) whether there are complaints or not? If the complaints lack any foundation in law (e.g., if they are in fact "frivolous" as claimed), what would Governor Palin have to pay and to whom? If there is no wrongdoing, all she'd have to do is answer questions and I don't think the Board would charge her to do that.

Seems to me that only if there is wrongdoing would she consider hiring a private attorney to work out a settlement of some kind, which I think is what happened when she agreed to pay back around $9000 of the expenses she billed Alaska for her children's travel.

So, how do these ethics complaints end up costing her any money, much less "bankrupting" her?

TommyReport April 28, 2009 6:01 PM  

Here's my question:

Has she ruled out using her line-item veto authority on the $120 million for education in the operating budget? It doesn't sound like it from the press release.

Under the proposal that she offered, she was always going to request the money. That was never in question with that proposal. The question now is whether she'll apply her plan via the line item veto and take out $120 million from the operating budget.

DB April 28, 2009 6:02 PM  

Wise,
Have a drink! Relax. She did what she had to do. She knows far more about her state and the budget than we do. I think this is a case where we have to trust her judgement. I do. She is the most honest politician I have ever seen. She represents Alaskans and has made it clear that she will not allow the government to grow. She also made it clear that when the money runs out, she will not continue the programs. Nobody in Alaska can say they are surprised when that happens. I think that was her main goal with the stimulus and she accomplished it.

Now I'm going to go have a drink. Not because of this but because it is dinner time here in NE Ohio. I think a good chardonnay is in order. Cheers to all.

wisetrog April 28, 2009 6:05 PM  

RAM @ 5.58, was that meant for me?

Greg April 28, 2009 6:07 PM  

Personally, I'm not a one issue voter. I don't really care if she accepted the stimulus in the end or not. I suspect that she will veto some of it or not request some of down the road, but I'm not even concerned about that.

As for the Joan of Arc question, I'll go with 2. She led armies of men into battle, and 5. she's still remembered 600 years later.

Here is another reference to Palin as Joan of Arc
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/74240

R. A. Mansour April 28, 2009 6:09 PM  

Ennealogic, when a complaint is filed against her or her family personally (not her office), she has to hire a lawyer to defend herself.

ugafish April 28, 2009 6:09 PM  

Tommy,
Are you saying that she can still implement her idea of replacing state spending with the stimulus?

TommyReport April 28, 2009 6:11 PM  

Uga,

Yes. But I'll be honest, I don't get the sense that she's going to do that from her press release.

People misunderstood her proposal: it meant that she was going to apply for the education money and the real drama was left for her veto pen for the operating budget.

TommyReport April 28, 2009 6:11 PM  

Wise,

It was meant for "Concerned Moderate."

upinak April 28, 2009 6:12 PM  

Eddie Burke is on talking about the Ethics Complaints.

Anyone want to call and tell him about the Alaskan endeavors?

TommyReport April 28, 2009 6:12 PM  

Bad news for her state:

Feds revoke rule limiting species protections
http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/apr/28/feds-revoke-rule-limiting-species-protections/

R. A. Mansour April 28, 2009 6:13 PM  

No, wisetrog, that was meant for the "Concerned Moderate." I don't have a problem with your disappointment about the stimulus. But you do need to understand that Alaskans are Americans. If the federal government mortgaged our future in a giant spendulus, they wanted their share of it. The most clever thing Congress did with that spendulus is make it so that if one state rejects the money it goes to another state. With that, there is a sense of, "what the heck? why should we let California get our share of the loot?"

The key passage in her press release to keep in mind is this:

The legislature agreed with the Governor that these federal funds should be used to generate new private sector jobs and not be used to create new services or programs. HB199 includes intent language to that effect: “The state will not be granting additional funds to continue the programs after the federal aid is exhausted.”She was always concerned about strings attached. Well, the one area with unquestionable "strings" was the weatherization stuff. She is rejecting that money.

Ennealogic April 28, 2009 6:13 PM  

RAM, none of the complaints that I am aware of are filed against her personally. They each relate to her obligations as an executive in the Alaska government.

Unless I'm missing something, could you please point out who has filed either a law suit or an ethics complaint against her that does not have to do with her role as Governor?

Thanks!

techno April 28, 2009 6:16 PM  

TommyReport:

Instead if you haven't already go down to the open thread and read my '10 strategies that Palin should employ to beocme POTUS'. I would be interested in your reaction.

upinak April 28, 2009 6:16 PM  

Concered...

As we can both agree the complaints are over the top. Think about it in my situation living up here and everyone minding their own business and then these come out. Why?

I dont' care if you are a liberal democrat, a conservative republican or a moderate independent... if the Alaskans are tired of this CRAP.. which we BOTH know it is, it is time for us to stand up.

Can you agree on that?

Brooks5 April 28, 2009 6:18 PM  

I kind of agree with Wise here. To the extent I can navigate through what is going on, I think she gave in much more than she needed to. She seems to be putting a lot of misplaced trust in the legistature. I find it awfully hard to believe that these funds won't be picked up by the state in two years, for example, no matter what the stated intent is now. The "federal" part of this money might be a one-time thing, but no way the money itself is. Things just don't work that way, and I think that will come back to haunt her.

And "legislators appear to have assured themselves that Alaska schools will use the one-time funds wisely"? What does that even mean and who cares what the legislators have told themselves? I know she's not a dictator, but she is a governor. Which means she is coequal with the legistature and has no obligation whatsoever to go along with anything they do. She shouldn't view the legislature as representing the people any more than the executive branch represents the people. She has veto power and the bully pulpit and she should have used both. Now maybe she can exert some power in distributing the funds, but I don't have a good feeling about how this will ultimately turn out.

Also, she could have used this opportunity to make a good case for federalism. I think that becomes harder now. I'm not trying to be too harsh, but I confess I am a little disappointed.

AKReport April 28, 2009 6:19 PM  
This post has been removed by the author.
R. A. Mansour April 28, 2009 6:20 PM  

Ennealogic,

Uh, every one of the complaints allege personal benefit for her or her family. The one from yesterday does. The jacket complaint does. Even Troopergate did.

Naturally, all the complaints relate to her role as governor. Duh! If she were a private citizen they wouldn't be filing executive branch ethics complaints against her.

Are you being willfully obtuse?

sarah palin rocks April 28, 2009 6:21 PM  

wisetrog:

She did the right thing IMO. She worked out a compromise with the legislature which wanted much more dollars than the $929 million Alaska will apply for. This shows she can be flexible and reasonable as a leader.

Sarah will not win points with independents by grandstanding for the GOP right now or engaging in a long drag out fight with the AK lawmakers over this.

Sarah is being a good governor and looking out for the best interests of her constituents by working with their legislature. Alaska is going through tough times right now with oil prices hurting and has rising unemployment. It would hurt Alaskans if she refused these funds.

It looks like she got the legislature to apply for fewer funds than they wanted and she got them to agree to try to use most of the funds to help increase private sector job growth. She has it on record that the legislature acknowledges that these monies will be one-time expenditures and not result in new, unsustainable programs.

These Stimulus dollars will be spent anyway so any governor who denies his/her state its share of those dollars would be foolish. Even fiscal conservatives agree that some form of stimulus was needed to jumpstart the economy.

Concerned Moderate April 28, 2009 6:21 PM  

upinak, I know I missed some of the earlier stream, but what do you mean by "stand up?" I think it is important for Alaskans to speak out to their government (I don't think it is appropriate at all for non-Alaskans to take that on-- deal with your own State governments!). What do you think the Alaskan government should do-- all of its branches, but maybe particularly the Executive? Do you think some kind of dialogue is possible? I think that is really important, otherwise it will remain an entrenched legal slugfest. What do you think?

Lakerfanalways April 28, 2009 6:22 PM  

Unfortunately she had no choice but accept the money. Am I disappointed..yes, but not at Sarah, but at the Legislature who, even if she had vetoed the funds, would have accepted it anyway so she decided why deal with the damn hassle, and accepted it, but will be in charge of what money goes where..she was obviously against the package, but really, what can she do, all of the Governors will be forced to accept it anyway, Sanford, Jindal, they all are gonna take it, would I have liked Sarah to veto it, sure, but she figured, whats the point, they are just gonna accept it anyway so she saved the state the trouble of dealing with more garbage

R. A. Mansour April 28, 2009 6:23 PM  

techno @ 5:29,

All of the above.

LAW April 28, 2009 6:24 PM  

If I understand a comment Sarah made awhile ago in regards to the cost of the ethics complaints it is twofold:

1)An ethic compaint is filed than the government officials, i.e. AG, staff lawyers, staffers must review the validity of the claim. This all costs the state extra money to do this. The state pays for this part.

2)The governor would also be covered by the state and the state would pay as well. HOWEVER, because she feels these are POLITICAL attacks and not valid ethics claims she doesn't feel it's right that the state is forced to pay for her defense. She has assumed the debt on behalf of herself and her co-workers who are being targeted for POLITICAL GAMESMANSHIP.

You know. That pesky thing of doing what is morally right and not going the convenient route.

upinak April 28, 2009 6:24 PM  

Concerned...

What I am saying is why are people going against her personally? There is no reason someone, no matter if they are a state worker or a normal average joe... should put in a complaint which they know there is nothing there to complain about.

Sarah is doing it "by the book" and yet it is interesting how people are not looking up the regulations on this. It isn't like no one can look them up the Alaska Law Library is online.

If someone is going to put in a complaint, at least have some weight behind it.

Angela April 28, 2009 6:25 PM  

http://tinyurl.com/cavlhx

Manly Rash talks about defending Governor Arctic Fox.

howIroll April 28, 2009 6:30 PM  

Just got a robo-call from Mike Huckabee....he asked me to donate money to HuckPAC....sheesh

TommyReport April 28, 2009 6:31 PM  

By the way,

Someone, DB or Hal, linked to this swing-state project article in another thread.

http://www.swingstateproject.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4717

They have the Alaska governor's race as a race-to-watch but what that means is that she's in a "safe" seat if you read their article closely.

"What follows are brief explanations of our initial ratings, including the "safe" races not listed above."

Since her seat was not listed above, they consider her safe but a "race to watch." Not that swing state project has any authority...

R. A. Mansour April 28, 2009 6:33 PM  

New post up on her stimulus decision. Take that debate up to the new thread, folks.

(Organizing barbarians is like herding cats...)

Concerned Moderate April 28, 2009 6:33 PM  

upinak, I am no legal expert, and I am only somewhat familiar with some of the ethics law in Alaska (which is, by the way, pretty comprehensive! Some States don't even have ethics statutes). I think it is kind of a mix, though I have not read all of the complaints in detail. Of the few I have read more of, there are some complaints that seem to only have a tenuous connection to the relevant articles in the law. Again, I am not a lawyer, but the Arctic Cat one might have some substantiation (since her family personally benefits it could be construed that her wearing the logo while acting in an official capacity-- not like going grocery shopping or something-- could be problematic.

I don't mean to harp on this, but I don't just take all of these as trivial. The filers have likely consulted with attorney's, and the fact that people are thinking with this much concern is, well, a matter of concern! As I said, I had never heard of a complaint being filed ever. I have surfed the progressive blogs and certainly see no conspiracy there. People seem frustrated and angry, and now it is making more people frustrated and angry!! This needs mediation, quick.

Off for now, peace.

wisetrog April 28, 2009 6:34 PM  

Brooks5, you've said what I've been thinking more eloquently.

More importantly, I'd take this as a cue she maybe running for re-election. 2012? Who knows but she's definitely sending out vibes that she's not in for 2012.

Ennealogic April 28, 2009 6:35 PM  

RAM, thank you for re-stating what I said originally.

You said,
Ennealogic, when a complaint is filed against her or her family personally (not her office), she has to hire a lawyer to defend herself.Are you confident that this is how executive branch ethics complaints are handled? My initial question was about the process.

I believe it goes like this, but wanted to know if anyone had different information. The complaint is reviewed by the AG. If there is merit, the complaint is forwarded to the Personnel Board for further examination. If the complaint is unfounded, it is tossed. If the complaint is valid, then and only then would the Governor think that maybe she should have her own private attorney to negotiate a settlement or agreement.

In short, if the complaints were strictly of the nuisance variety, I don't see how Governor Palin would be out of pocket for anything. Do you?

(And I know you know what I'm talking about. Let's discuss this without casting aspersions.)

DrChill April 28, 2009 6:39 PM  

ugafish said...
Because the legislative investigation had become politically charged, she introduced the matter to the personnel board which is proper jurisdiction under the law. The independent investigator found that she did nothing wrong.
================
Its the proper jurisdiction for employees filing for ethics determinations or disclosure and even ethics complaints under 39.52

A legislature investigation was and always has been a prerogative. They can investigate whatever they like.
The bipartisan investigation had twice as many republicans as democrats.

Governor Palin agreed to co-operate with the investigation.

Yes, It did get politically charged, when the McCain campaign got involved.

The ethics panel was hand picked by Palin, and their lawyer dismissed the complaint.

If the panel was hand picked by the democrats, you'd cry foul, unless they agreed with you.
But you like the call so you call it fair.

I'm not a Palin 'Hater' but some of you guys are just so madly in love with Governor Palin. And Love is blind IMO.

upinak April 28, 2009 6:42 PM  

Chill and yet you can't show anything in concerns of how it is supposedly Illegal?

Sorry... you are still blowing wind!

beehive April 28, 2009 6:42 PM  

TommyReport

The governor can still line item veto right?

hrh April 28, 2009 6:55 PM  

She loves AK, so I think she's running for reelection. I believe she loves her country and will be running in 2012, too.

I also believe she lives in the moment, today, carpe diem. She is now the Governor of Alaska and is doing what she believes is best within the pragmatic reality of checks and balances in government and what her legislature has stated.

She is keeping the control that the executive has, which is not dictatorial, but is always tempered by the legislature. And works in conjunction with the judicial. As we saw with her Supreme Court choice.

She is a Constitutionalist.

And I repeat, she is now the elected Governor of Alaska, with a year and half left on the 4-year contract she has with Alaskans. So she is doing her current job first and foremost.

She is not Machiavellian, she is not a narcissist, she is a public servant, who is serving in her current position. If she believes she can serve Alaskans as governor or as president, she will go for it.

Wasserjungen April 28, 2009 7:46 PM  

JEEZ we're even getting spam here?

R. A. Mansour April 28, 2009 8:22 PM  

No, actually, Chill, it was politically charged when one member of the commission promised an "October Suprise," and later the person in charge of the commission got a nice Chicago-style pay off by being appointed to a cushy job in Obama's Department of the Interior.

The proof for this is the fact that the nuetral non-partisan Personnel Board found absolutely no wrong doing whatsoever and said that the Branchflower Report misinterpreted the law completely!

Go read the Personnel Report!

Anyone defending these ankle-biting idiots is a complete ass.

The Aged P April 29, 2009 1:16 AM  

DB - well said and later today I will join you in that drink but not now as it's 6.15am in England so I'll wait until we are in the pub at lunchtime with a pint of honest ale..

bestbud April 29, 2009 5:37 PM  

Sarah's Fate?

Her story in American History is in It's infancy, sometimes It just seems to us Barbarians that It is not unfolding fast enough... we all have advice and opinions and wishes, which is only natural for us that Admire and Respect her accomplishments so much.

The last election was lost because, in Sarah's words, "WE DIDN'T REPRESENT ENOUGH OF A CHANGE".

She became Governor in 2006 by representing a REAL contrast and change for Alaska, from all that had been the norm.

If the last 5-months has shown us anything, It is the stark differences of Obamas campaign rhetoric to what is his real goal of massive intrusion of Government into our lives.
Another 31/2 yrs. and the delineation will shine like the morning sun.

In other words, the contrast of a Sarah Palin and any Democrat and even most Republicans, will be as striking to America as it was to Alaskans in 2006.

It's sad that we have to witness and actually feel the pain before It motivates us to act but learning from HARD KNOCKS is usually the way it happens.

Sometimes things just have to go... "'To Hell in a Hand Basket" before us spoiled Americans get off our duffs.

Carmelo Junior April 30, 2009 10:24 AM  

Do these people really think ethic complaints will take down Sarah Palin's popularity? She will be easily reelected in Alaska. Her enemies need more than ethic complaints to take her down. Remember Clinton and his scandals that were 1000 times bigger than ethic compalaints yet he won reelection against boring Bob Dole.

shamlin August 14, 2009 10:57 AM  

Jeanne d'arc redux:

http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=dfbc6b6de49a400d84bed185da46683f&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3adfbc6b6de49a400d84bed185da46683fPost%3a054eee36-2cbc-4a15-913d-b900d1b2d0d7&sid=sitelife.mydesert.com

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP