Problem Palin

Last week it was all Palin. Well, here is a little more.

First comes something from the Anchorage Daily News.

Governor is stonewalling the Troopergate investigation

Gov. Sarah Palin is taking the wrong approach to Troopergate. She should be practicing the open and transparent, ethical and accountable government she promised when running for governor and boasts about now that she's on the national stage.

Instead, Gov. Palin has begun stonewalling the Legislature's attempt to get the bottom of allegations that she, her family or staff violated ethical or state personnel rules...

The allegations are that she, her family or administration improperly pressured then-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire Gov. Palin's ex-brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten, who had been in the middle of a custody dispute with Palin's sister...

Palin's lawyer has asked the Legislature to drop its investigation. He had the governor file an ethics complaint against herself, in a bid to turn the entire matter over to the state Personnel Board, which would hire an independent investigator.

This is not an open and transparent attempt to establish Gov. Palin's accountability. It is an attempt to drag out the investigation until after voters decide the fate of her vice-presidential bid.

This is typical of the disgusting corruption among Alaska Republicans.

Next let me quote from Badger Blues calling Palin an outright liar:

An incomplete list of things we know about Sarah Palin:

In both of her big campaign speeches, she repeatedly lied about opposing the bridge to nowhere.

As mayor, she tried to ban books from the public library, and then tried to fire the librarian who wouldn’t go along with her.

As mayor, she fired the police chief for not supporting her election campaign.

As governor, she tried to fire her ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper. When it became public, she lied about it.

As governor, she fired the state’s chief of police when he wouldn’t go along with her plan to fire her ex-brother-in-law. When it became public, she lied about it.

Oh, and she opposes birth control, even for married couples, and she opposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. She doesn’t believe in global warming, and she wants to teach creationism in our schools.

Again, typical corrupt, lying republican.

You can find an extensive fact check of Palin's RNC speech over at Progressive Alaska.

Finally I will end with a quote from Open Left, which is asking "Who Chose Palin?"

Who chose Palin?

Well, it certainly wasn't John McCain.

McCain only met Palin once, six months ago. Unlike every other major party VP nominee in recent memory, Palin did not meet McCain for a final interview before her selection. A few weeks ago, she wasn't in the running at all. The scandals and unorthodoxies involving Palin -- she flip-flopped on the Bridge to Nowhere and even raised sales taxes on her small town to pay for an overpriced boondoggle -- show that the McCain campaign didn't vet her. The McCains and Palins looked visibly awkward together, not even speaking as they went their separate ways on a brief shopping trip in Ohio yesterday. McCain is on record as saying he wanted a running mate with whom he had a strong personal relationship -- and who was ready to be president.

This was clearly not his pick. So again: Who chose Palin?

When I first heard he chose Palin it really made me wonder just what he was thinking picking someone who was actively under investigation and who hails from the most corrupt state party in the country, the Alaska Republicans. He was just ASKING for corruption to be the big issue of the election, and remember it was Republican Corruption that won it for Democrats in 2006. Let's hope the issue wins it for us again.

Let me remind you of just how corrupt Republicans really are by directing you to a now outdated but still relevant list of Democrat vs. Republican corruption. We can of course add Palin herself to the list for the Troopergate investigation.


mole333's picture

| | | |


Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Buy it!


Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Google Ads

The Big Dialog


Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 692 guests online.

Online users

Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Words to live by

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify