Oct 13, 2008

Palin shares abuse of power gene with Bush Administration


If we need any more proof that a Grampy McSame administration will be nothing but a repeat of the crooked, secretive and incompetent Bush Administration, we now have the results of the investigation of the Alaska Legislative Council that found that Sarah “Spiro” Palin violated state ethics laws and abused her power by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper.

Like Bush, Palin ignored the Constitution and did whatever it took to get what she wanted, and we see the absolute vindictiveness against people she and her husband perceived as wronged them. Granted, this is not illegal wiretapping, torture of prisoners or starting an illegal and unnecessary war, but given how small Alaska is, this is the best - or worse - Palin could do.

Could you imagine the havoc Palin and her husband Todd would cause with the power of the IRS and the already politicized Department of Justice in their hands? It’s as scary as having a totally inexperienced person like Palin as the Commander-in-chief.

Palin is also following the example of the incompetent Bush Administration by releasing a much anticipated report on a Friday when it’s hoped not as many people are paying attention and news rooms only have skeleton crews.

According to the Associated Press, the report said the inquiry looked into Palin's dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who was fired because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce and custody battle with the governor's sister. The retired prosecutor hired to conduct the investigation, said Monegan's firing was lawful. But the pressure Palin and her husband put on him was not.

According to the report, it was her husband, Todd, who led the charge. “Todd Palin had extraordinary access to the governor's office and her closest advisers and he used that access to try to get Wooten fired Gov. Palin knowingly "permitted Todd to use the Governor's office and the resources of the Governor's office, including access to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired," Branchflower's report reads.

It’s kind of funny, Palin is McSame’s attack dog spreading hateful lies and whipping the crowds up into a frenzy of hatred, and apparently Todd Palin is the attack dog for his wife.

The McSame campaign failed in its attempt to block the report until after the election, but they immediately tried to spin it as politically motivated and an attempt to tarnish the GOP VP candidate. That ignores, of course, the fact that the investigation began when no one had any idea Palin was even being considered as a VP candidate.

This is just more proof that conservatives cannot govern. I’m reading a great book by John Dean, the former Richard Nixon legal counsel, called “Broken Government.” The gist of the book is how Republican rule has destroyed the three branches of government.

This report shatters the farce that Palin is a reformer, and what she really is, is the queen of earmarks, and Dean’s book highlights how the Grand Oil Party used earmarks as bribes.

In the book, Dean talks about how earmarks increased under GOP rule and how it was used to pay off lobbyists for their role in the K Street scandal. Dean says over the past 50 years there have been 9,242 earmarks in highway bills. Of those, 8,505 or 92 percent have been inserted in the three highway bills enacted since Republicans took the House 10 years ago prior to 2007. That’s how we got the infamous bridge to nowhere that Palin lied about when she said she said, “Thanks but no thanks” failing to revel she took the money anyway.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

So if this if proof that McCain will be as corrupt as Bush, what do Travelgate and assorted Clinton scandals prove? How about "losing" files that mysteriously show up in the White House months later...that's as funny and unbelievable as the 18 minute gap from Nixon tapes. It surely appears that Palin and her hubby were too involved with this case...it's a family issue and perhaps understandable, but she should have stayed a mile away from it...but to call it a super scandal is a big stretch. I'm not at all a Palin fan...she's terribly unqualified and she is now chasing the radical extreme and hate vote. But attack her for real things, not this overblown charge.

But you probably can't do that, given that the thought of Elliot Spitzer gives you warm fuzzies.

You don't see it, but you are no different than the Sean Hannities. Your guys can do no wrong and their guys are the most evil with everything they do. That's easy but it doesn't get us anywhere.

Communications guru said...

What “Travelgate” and “assorted Clinton scandals” prove is how vicious right-wingers are, how getting Democrats matters more than the country and they have no problem wasting millions of taxpayers dollars on a witch hunt. See, of all the stuff investigated by Rightwing Republican Ken Starr under the “Whitewater” witch hunt the only thing they got Bill Clinton on was he received oral sex and denied it. Now, that is a family matter. Firing someone because he will not fire a family member wants fired is not a family matter.

It’s a lot more than “Palin and her hubby were too involved with this case.” It’s an abuse of power. Those are the words of the investigator and the bipartisan panel, not mine. I agree with you that she is terribly unqualified, but this speaks to her character and trumps her false claim to be a “reformer.”

I don’t get the Elliot Spitzer crack. The difference between Elliot Spitzer and Sarah Palin is Spitzer took responsibility for his actions. Palin refuses to do so.

The difference between me and Sean Haity is I don’t make up stuff to prove my point.

Anonymous said...

Spitzer didn't take responsibility for his actions. He spent thousands of dollars on a hooker and then he was caught and was confronted with irrefutable evidence. That's like saying Bill Clinton took responsibility for his actions when he confessed to sex with Monica and Flowers...but only after denying it and then only after undeniable evidence (taped phone calls and semen stained dress). Had that evidence not appeared, he would still be lying...upfront guy that he is. That's why I don't believe his denials about Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey. He may be innocent of wrongdoing in all 3, but his denials mean nothing...because he's made it clear he will lie and lie again until the evidence is overwhelming. You call it a family matter, but he committed perjury. You don't get to choose which questions you get to answer truthfully.

What about Hillary's corkscrew maneuvers to avoid enemy fire in Bosnia...and then having to run to avoid sniper fire....Bald-faced lies. She and Bill never owned up to them; they just said she misspoke (several times) because she was tired. Tired! You imagine a harrowing escape that never happened because you were tired!

The best thing that ever happened to this country is that Hillary Clinton will not be our president. For all his personal faults, Bill was a good president. She would have been dangerous.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, Spitzer did take responsibility for his actions. This is a typical rightwing trick of deflecting attention away from their many indiscretions, but Spitzer resigned when he was caught. I don’t believe he had to do that. He could have taken the same stance as David Vitter. Prescient Clinton was impeached. I would say that’s taking responsibility. Although I have no idea why that was even relevant. As for “Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick and Kathleen Willey” I don’t know if any of it was true, but I do know it has nothing to do with Spiro Palin abusing her power.

I will continue to call it a family matter, but that’s not entirely true. It may matter to some voters when they cast their ballot. I also know this: Isn’t a good thing the Democrats don’t try to say they are the party of family values and preach to everyone else on how to live their private lives. If that was the case it would make me a hypocrite.

Again, what Sen. Clinton did or did not say is irrelevant. I know this, between her and Obama I voted for Obama. But she would make a much better president than Grampy McSame or Spiro Palin. To say Hillary Clinton is dangerous is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the facts. She has proved to be a good U.S. Senator. Now, if you want to say that about Grampy McSame and Spiro Palin I might agree with you.

Anonymous said...

But here is where you are just like Limbaugh and Hannity. You resort to name-calling..spiro and Grampy. Apparently being old is a sin to you,clever guy that you are.

You will twist yourself into a pretzel to hold onto a stupid point, and you still fail. How can you say that Clinton took responsibility by being impeached. He didn't impeach himself...others did it. That's like saying Al Capone took responsiblity by getting arrested. Amazing.

If Palin got involved with her brother-in-law's employment, she was wrong. It's understandable, but wrong. She thought her sister was wronged, she thought the trooper did some pretty outrageous things (some of which, he admits to) and she wondered why he was still a trooper. But she wasn't just anyone, she was the governor, and she wasn't just talking about a trooper, she was talking about one married to her sister. One person she called begged her to back off just for that reason...she needed to let the system take its courase and she could ot interfere. She and her husband apparently didn't heed that advice and it's a mistake. But it's not by itself a deal killer for me. If she had never done that, I still wouldn't find her qualified. And if I found her qualified, that incident wouldn't change my mind. I don't expect these folks to be perfect.

But what about your sainted Hillary? Exactly when he she come forward to own up to her abuse of power as First Lady. Oh, that's right, you don't think she ever did anything wrong.

I notice you don't respond to the corkscrew manuevers. Maybe Grampy Guru can't remember that far back.

Communications guru said...

I am hardly like limpdick and haity. I have never been convicted of abusing drugs, for one. Second, I don’t make up stuff and I’m not a racist. There is nothing at all wrong with being old, and he can have any job he wants; but not the most important and stressful job in, perhaps, the world.

I “twist myself into a pretzel to hold onto a stupid point?” That’s your opinion, and I could say the same thing of you, Brett, or who ever you are. You may have a point about Clinton’s impeachment, but it never should have reached that point. What Clinton did pales in comparison to what Bush has gotten away with, so far.

It’s not “If Palin got involved with her brother-in-law's employment” she did. That was what the bipartisan Legislative panel said, and that was what the entire post was about. Wow. So now you are saying it’s OK that if she believes he did some alleged stuff to her family she can abuse her power? And you accuse me of “corkscrew maneuvers.” It’s wrong period. Just because she says stuff about this guy doesn’t mean it’s true. Why not file a complaint against the trooper like every other citizen?

When did I ever call Sen. Clinton a saint? She’s my second choice for president. When did she abuse her power as First Lady? I’ll tell you, never. Every single move she and the president made was investigated at taxpayer expense, and nothing was found. If you can prove different, please do so.

“I notice you don't respond to the corkscrew maneuvers?” First, what the hell are “corkscrew maneuvers?” Second, I notice you didn’t respond to a lot of stuff too, if you are the same person posting. Like what the difference is between Elliott Spitzer and David Vitter? Or what kind of havoc Palin and her husband Todd would cause with the power of the IRS and the already politicized Department of Justice in their hands?

I’m a grandfather all right, but I can remember what I wrote yesterday. But then again, I know I’m not qualified to be president, or even a U.S. Senator or Congressman.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Kevin. Thank you.

I was really undecided about who to vote for in the presidential election, and then I stumbled across your blog, and I see that you continually refer to John McCain as "Grampy McSame."

Thank you for raising the level of political discourse in this race, Kevin. Thank you! Where other people are content to just discuss issues and experience, you are the ONLY one clever enough to resort to juvenile name-calling. Thank you!

If only more people were like you, Kevin. If only! If only more people would look past the important issues of the day and stick to the name-calling like YOU do, Kevin, what a better place this country would be!

So thank you, Kevin. Thank you for showing off your superior intellect by calling John McCain names. That really helped convince me that I need to vote for Barack Obama.

Thank you, Kevin. Thank you!

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

Oh, you don't like Grampy McSame?

What about POW McPancakes? I kinda like that one.

Communications guru said...

You’re welcome, who ever you are since you didn’t have the courage to identify yourself. Like you were really going to vote for Sen. Obama.

Right, it’s me that has lowered the level of political discourse. Perhaps you weren’t paying attention when karl rove called Grampy McSame a traitor, said he was brainwashed by communists in Vietnam or fathered a black baby out of wedlock? You must not have heard about all the smears against Obama. Or maybe you didn’t hear the names he was called like, a Muslim, a terrorist or he’s a traitor because he didn’t wear a lapel pin? Perhaps you weren’t at one of the Grampy McSame rallies where he was called a terrorist, people shouted “kill him” or “off with his head?”

The lobbyists who run McSame campaign have said it’s not about the issues,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_manager_this_election_i.html

And it’s me that has “raised the political discourse in this race.” Get real. I’m also supposed to believe you “stumbled across my blog,” but you know my name. Right.

Joe said...

The investigators said that what Palin did was not illegal. You called it illegal. Neither Limbaugh nor Hannity were convicted of abusing drugs. It's been documented that Obama did have more than just a passing friendship or just a neighbor of the terrorist Bill Ayers. He served on two boards with him and Ayers threw the coming out party for Obama's political career. Neither McCain or Palin shouted "off with his head" or "kill him". It's wrong to blame them for what a couple of their supporters say.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

It's wrong to blame them for what a couple of their supporters say.

MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Double-standard much? Obama has been made responsible for anyone who took a breath on the same block and you have the fucking balls to write that?

Tell me, did you hurt yourself writing that? Perhaps a closed head injury or something?

Communications guru said...

I don't believe I said what Palin did was illegal. I said she violated state ethics laws and abused her power. You are correct, Haity has never been convicted, but in 2006 prosecutors agreed to drop the charges of "doctor shopping" against Limbdick if he paid $30,000 to defray the cost of the investigation and completed an 18-month therapy regimen with his physician. When he got caught coming back from the Dominion Republic with an illegal prescription of Viagra they let him go. If I had done any of those things, I would have been in jail like Limdick advocated for everyday on his soapbox.

You are wrong about Professor Bill Ayers. They served on two boards together and the person Sen. Obama succeeded in the Illinois Senate brought him to a coffee in Ayers home. That is just a passing acquaintance. You keep calling Professor Ayers a terrorist, but he was a radical anti-war protestor who has not been convicted of anything. That's in sharp contrast to Grampy McSame's friendship with convicted felon and terrorist G. Gordon Liddy. http://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2008/10/republicans-getting-increasingly.html

I never said McSame or Palin shouted "off with his head" or "kill him." However, they are the ones, especially palin, who whipped up the crowd's hatred with lies like he "pals around with terrorists," or "we don't know Obama is." They bear the responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Bill Ayers is not a terrorist? He tried to blow up the Capitol. He said he was only sorry that he didn't do more damage. But you say he was only an anti-war radical. Because he wasn't convicted. Amazing.

So the people who flew jets into the World Trade Center must not be terrorists either. They surely saw themselves as radicals who believed in their cause.

Are you suggesting Ayers wasn't a terrorist because he inept at his bombing attempt?

Communications guru said...

G. Gordon Liddy is not a terrorist?

You are wrong about the lie that he said "he was only sorry that he didn't do more." He was talking about the Vietnam war, and he was sorry he didn't do more to stop it. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way when it turned out the war did nothing for the security of this country. Just like the Iraq occupation.

Comparing Professor Ayers and the World Trade Center terrorists is ridiculous. I don't believe Professor Ayers killed anybody, certainly not 3,000 people. If his crimes are so heinous why not prosecute him? I'm not as familiar as you are – strike that, neither are you apparently – but just because one charge was thrown out, why not bring another one? I wonder what he has to do to make up for his past crimes?

I didn't know he inept at his bombing attempt.

Anonymous said...

The only reason he didn't kill more people is because he failed...he wanted to, but he failed. You totally take your positions on whether the person in question is a Republican or a Democrat...the facts of each case are meaningless to you...you change your measurement standards depending on the party of the person.

If the standard is conviction, then use it for everyone. What, exactly, has Palin been convicted of? Apparently, in your mind, it's worse to have an ethical challenge in Alaska, then it is to try and blow up a government building in Washington, D.C. After all, Ayers wasn't convicted. What does he have to do to make up for past crimes (but I thought they weren't crimes, since he wasn't convicted)? How about if he admits to the crime and says he was wrong. That's what your hero Elliot Spitzer sort of did.

So you must think Foley is a pretty standup guy as well. He resigned. Of course the guy who now has his House seat is in hot water for using $121,000 to keep his lover from talking. Married guy, he is. Wonder where he got $121,000. Wonder when he'll be as upfront as Spitzer...or Foley.

Wonder how you will find a way to praise him and Spitzer but not Foley.

Communications guru said...

So, is G. Gordon Liddy a terrorist or not?

You say the only reason he didn’t kill more people is because he failed. How many people did he kill? I’m not sure the goal was to kill anybody; it was to stop the senseless Vietnam War. I do base some of my positions on whether the “person in question is a Republican or a Democrat.” But certainly not all, and certainly not the entire criteria.

What Professor Bill Ayers did or did not do has nothing to do with Sen. Barack Obama, brett.

True, Palin has not been convicted of anything, brett, but she abused her power. Tell you what, I won’t vote for Bill Ayers nor will I vote for Palin for the same reason.

By your reasoning, when a person commits a crime, any crime, they should be thrown into prison and never be rehabilitated, no matter what kind of life they led afterward. Where do you get Elliot Spitzer is my hero? If you remember, brett, you made the false claim Democrats don’t take responsibility for their actions, and I used Spitzer as an example of one who did. As for Foley, you should remember he was forced to resign by Denny Hastert, and he was going to be expelled from the House. The lesson is perhaps you should not claim to the party of family values and preach to other people. The fact that the person who claims to a crusader against child abuse and exploitation is a suspected child molester bothers some people. But he gets some credit for resigning.

As for Rep. Tim Mahoney, I don’t that munch abut the story, but he had an extrametrical affair. But so have your heroes like Gramp McSame, Newt Gingrich and David Vitter. He says he did not do anything illegal, like Vitter, and Vitter got a standing ovation for being a John and committing a crime with a prostitute.

ka_Dargo_Hussein said...

IOKIYAR