Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:21 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

Palin isn't ignoring the subpoenas. She is challenging the legitimacy of them in court. Do you understand the difference?

I heard the news reports on TV so can't give you a written cite.


Then I will have to assume that the information re: insubordination does not exist. Until you can provide a source for it, it is as if it does not, in terms of the ability to discuss it in a rational fashion. I am willing to give you time to do so.

Palin is not challenging the legitimacy of specific subpoenas in court, but instead challenging the entire investigation; and even if she was, she would need an injunction from a judge to keep from having to comply with them. You can't just drop a court filing and say 'see! We don't have to say anything now!' Until some party with authority rules that the subpoenas are invalid, those who avoid them are in violation of the law.

This is exactly what Bush has done re: the DoJ attorney firings. It's eerie how similar they are, actually.

Cycloptichorn
Berger
 
  1  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Palin is challenging the legitimacy of the subpoenas in court. That is her right and NOT a violation of any law.
0 Replies
 
Berger
 
  3  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You are correct in saying that Palin is challenging the legitimacy of the whole charade in court which would, of course, include challenging the subpoenas. Haven't read the court filings, but I would suspect they include a hold on complying with the subpoenas pending resolution of the litigation.

You might want to tune in the evening news to get up to date on the insubordination issue.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:29 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

You are correct in saying that Palin is challenging the legitimacy of the whole charade in court which would, of course, include challenging the subpoenas. Haven't read the court filings, but I would suspect they include a hold on complying with the subpoenas pending resolution of the litigation.

You might want to tune in the evening news to get up to date on the insubordination issue.


What insubordination issue? If you cannot provide a link to a web article, it doesn't exist. I don't buy that they only talk about this on TV. And it's not good enough for them to allege that they have evidence that he was fired over insubordination; they have to be able to provide proof. And if they have the proof, why fight the investigation?

Debra Law was correct above; post facto excuses for one's actions are not credible. It's far more credible to listen to what Palin had to say at the time, and that does not support her - or your - case.

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  1  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:33 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:
the whole charade

But you wouldn't be pre-judging, of course.
0 Replies
 
Berger
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Suggest you tune in your evening news channel of choice. I suspect the insubordination issue of which you plead ignorance will be reported.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:35 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

Suggest you tune in your evening news channel of choice. I suspect the insubordination issue of which you plead ignorance will be reported.


I'm sorry, but as the one who made the claim, the burden to provide evidence is upon you, not me. It is your responsibility to find the evidence if you wish your argument to carry any weight. Surely you understand this?

Cycloptichorn
Berger
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Just in.
http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/527346.html
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 04:54 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

Just in.
http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/527346.html
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.



Thanks, though you ought to understand that you were not assisting me, but your own case, by providing supporting evidence.

From that link -

Quote:


In one message, the governor's budget director, Karen Rehfeld, wrote that she was "stunned and amazed" that Monegan appeared to be working with a powerful state legislator, Anchorage Republican Rep. Kevin Meyer, to seek funding for a project Palin previously had vetoed.


The program that was vetoed was an anti-domestic violence initiative. AK has the highest incidence of Rape in the nation. I doubt Palin is going to want to get too deep into defending her vetoing of this program...

Quote:


The filing includes a July 17, 2007, e-mail Palin sent to Monegan in which she complains that a proposal to ban gun sales to people who make death threats wouldn't stop her former brother-in-law, Wooten, from carrying a gun.

"Amazing," the e-mail says. "And he's still a trooper, and he still carries a gun, and he still tells anyone who will listen that he will 'never work for that b----' (me) because he has such anger and distain (sic) towards my family."


That's odd, Palin is on record - on more then one occasion - as denying ever having sent any emails concerning her ex brother-in-law to Monegan. She has admitted lying to the public with this court filing.

Unless a judge has granted an injunction, barring the subpoenas from going forward, I don't see anything here that would grant those who are under subpoena the right to ignore them. They are in violation of the law for doing so, and Palin's ordering of the AG of AK to not issue the subpoenas is another violation of the law; she's digging herself deeper here.

Cycloptichorn
Berger
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:


I did not need to make my case...I already knew about the insubordination.

That's odd, Palin is on record - on more then one occasion - as denying ever having sent any emails concerning her ex brother-in-law to Monegan.

You have a cite for that claim I suppose?

She has admitted lying to the public with this court filing.

A politician lying? Say it ain't so!
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:13 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:


I did not need to make my case...I already knew about the insubordination.

That's odd, Palin is on record - on more then one occasion - as denying ever having sent any emails concerning her ex brother-in-law to Monegan.

You have a cite for that claim I suppose?

She has admitted lying to the public with this court filing.

A politician lying? Say it ain't so!



You are correct. Upon review, I see that Palin claimed to never have discussed the firing of Wooten in emails, not never to have emailed the guy about Wooten at all. It's splitting hairs, but technically correct.

I agree, politicians are liars. But when they get caught in lies, they ought to admit it, rather then attempt to do an end-run around the law, as Republicans have been doing lately.

Cycloptichorn
Berger
 
  3  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:15 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Berger wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:


I agree, politicians are liars. But when they get caught in lies, they ought to admit it, rather then attempt to do an end-run around the law, as Republicans have been doing lately.

Cycloptichorn


Somebody should have told Clinton that.
blueflame1
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:21 pm
Sarah Palin's wasteful ways
She poses as a fiscal watchdog, but when Palin was mayor, she grabbed city funds to give her office a pricey "bordello" makeover.

by David Talbot
Sept. 17, 2008 | WASILLA, Alaska -- Sarah Palin has been touting herself as fiscal watchdog throughout her political career. But Palin's tenure as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, was characterized by waste, cronyism and incompetence, according to government officials in the Matanuska Valley, where she began her fairy-tale political rise.

"Executive abilities? She doesn't have any," said former Wasilla City Council member Nick Carney, who selected and groomed Palin for her first political race in 1992 and served with her after her election to the City Council.

Four years later, the ambitious Palin won the Wasilla mayor's office -- after scorching the "tax and spend mentality" of her incumbent opponent. But Carney, Palin's estranged former mentor, and others in city hall were astounded when they found out about a lavish expenditure of Palin's own after her 1996 election. According to Carney, the newly elected mayor spent more than $50,000 in city funds to redecorate her office, without the council's authorization.

"I thought it was an outrageous expense, especially for someone who had run as a budget cutter," said Carney. "It was also illegal, because Sarah had not received the council's approval."

According to Carney, Palin's office makeover included flocked, red wallpaper. "It looked like a bordello."

Although Carney says he no longer has documentation of the expenditures, in his recollection Palin paid for the office face-lift with money from a city highway fund that was used to plow snow, grade roads and fill potholes -- essential municipal services, particularly in weather-battered Alaska.

Carney confronted Mayor Palin at a City Council hearing, and was shocked by her response.

"I braced her about it," he said. "I told her it was against the law to make such a large expenditure without the council taking a vote. She said, 'I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't.'"

"I'll never forget it -- it's one of the few times in my life I've been speechless," Carney added. "It would have been easier for her to finesse it. She had the votes on the council by then, she controlled it. But she just pushed forward. That's Sarah. She just has no respect for rules and regulations."

Carney, who comes from a long-established homesteading family in the area and once ran the city's garbage collection business, has decided to speak out for the first time since Palin's vice-presidential nomination. He is viewed as a longtime Palin gadfly, ever since he sided with her opponent in the 1996 mayor's race. After Palin won, she froze out Carney, refusing to call on him at City Council meetings and deep-sixing his proposals. "That's the way Sarah is," Carney said. "She rewards friends and cuts everyone else off at the knees."

Other local officials -- who lack Carney's acrimonious history with Palin -- share his dim view of her mayoral reign. When Palin ran for mayor, she dismissed concerns about her lack of managerial expertise by saying the job was "not rocket science." But after a tumultuous start, marked by controversial firings and lawsuits against the city, Palin felt compelled to hire a city manager named John Cramer to steady the ship.

"Sarah was unprepared to be mayor -- it was John Cramer who actually ran the city," said Michelle Church, a member of the Mat-Su Borough Assembly, who knows Palin socially. "As vice-president she'll certainly have to rely on faceless advisors with no public accountability. Haven't we had enough of that in the past eight years?"

Other officials in the borough government -- the equivalent of county government in other states -- point out that Palin actually had very little executive responsibility, since the borough oversees many of Wasilla's vital functions.

"After all her boasting about her executive experience, what did she do?" asks a longtime borough official, who, like many in local circles, requested anonymity because of Palin's reputation for vengeance. "The borough takes care of most of the planning, the fire, the ambulance, collecting the property taxes. And on top of that she brought in a city manager to actually run the city day to day. So what executive experience did she have as mayor?"

Palin does have two major accomplishments to her name as mayor: the by now highly publicized sports complex on the outskirts of Wasilla, which she pushed through city government, and the less well-known emergency dispatch center, which she also brought to her hometown.

The sports complex, however, is seen by many local officials as a budget-busting white elephant.

"I feel sorry for our current mayor, because of the mess that Sarah left behind," said Anne Kilkenny, a respected government watchdog in Wasilla. "And the sports arena is still a money loser for the city."

"Sarah was very focused on the sports complex," said Wasilla council member Dianne Woodruff, who began serving after Palin's tenure. "But somebody forgot to buy the land before they started building on it. Somebody dropped the ball. It was the fault of the people running the city at the time. As a result, we've spent well over a million dollars more than we should have. And we're still paying for it."

Today, the sports complex sits like a huge airplane hangar outside the Wasilla city limits, in a clearing in the woods. Since Palin's administration decided to build the complex far from Wasilla's population center, kids can't walk there or ride their bicycles. On a recent, drizzly afternoon, the cavernous building sat nearly empty. Inside, two girls glided aimlessly around on the ice rink.

But the quiet arena still held Palin's charged presence. A wall plaque commemorated Mayor Sarah Palin and her City Council for constructing the edifice. And on the walls, big, bold quotations urged young athletes to attempt impossible, Sarah Barracuda-like feats: "'You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.' -- Wayne Gretzky."

Local officials are also highly critical of Palin's decision to build an emergency dispatch center -- even though Wasilla and nearby Palmer already shared the costs of an emergency operation for the Mat-Su Valley. As a result of the duplication, there are now two expensive operations for an area with 85,000 people, while the city of Anchorage, with a population of over 300,000, makes do with one emergency station.

"Don't tell me about earmarks," snorts a borough official. "Because of Palin's ego, she couldn't stand the idea of sharing an emergency dispatch operation with Palmer, which has been Wasilla's town rival ever since her high school basketball days. So she ran to [Senator] Ted Stevens to get an earmark for her own system. Now we have two expensive emergency systems and both are losing money. She's no budget cutter -- give me a break. She's just the opposite."

Nick Carney, who is now retired in Utah, has a lot of time to ponder Sarah Palin's rise these days. When he and his wife picked Palin to run for City Council in 1992, because they felt the council needed an average-mom type like her, Carney had no idea how far their protégé would soar. "It was a very casual process, she wasn't even our first choice. We had known her since she was a girl, she went to school with our daughter. It wasn't that she was the brightest thing on the horizon, a rising star or anything like that."

But, in hindsight, Carney can see the qualities that have rocket-propelled Palin to where she is today.

"'Sarah Barracuda' -- she's proud of that name now, she uses it in her campaigns," said her former mentor. "But she got that name from the way she conducted herself with her own teammates. She was vicious to the other girls, always playing up to the coach and pointing out when the other girls made mistakes. She was the coach's favorite and he gave her more playing time than her skills warranted. My niece was on her team; she was a very good player. I used to sit there in the stands, and I would wonder, Why on earth is Sarah getting so much playing time?"
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/17/palin_mayor/
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:22 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:


I agree, politicians are liars. But when they get caught in lies, they ought to admit it, rather then attempt to do an end-run around the law, as Republicans have been doing lately.

Cycloptichorn


Somebody should have told Clinton that.


I agree, someone should have told Clinton that. Look at the trouble he caused by bullishly insisting on lying, in order to try and spare the embarassment. It's a good lesson, the one you point out. But not one that really supports Palin's position.

Palin is now trying to do the same thing, but worse - she's using her DoJ to actively block the investigation, something Clinton didn't do.

She should have come right out and said, 'yeah, I did it, the guy is a scumbag, he deserves to be fired, and I'm not sorry about it.' But she didn't. Now the lie is coming back to haunt her.

In other news,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26761964#26761964

Quote:
The McCain campaign says it can prove Monegan was fired in July because of insubordination on budget issues
...
The "last straw," the campaign said, was a trip Monegan planned to Washington in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.

In a July 7 e-mail, John Katz, the governor's special counsel, noted two problems with the trip: the governor hadn't agreed the money should be sought, and the request "is out of sequence with our other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. Stevens."


The 'last straw' is that the guy was searching for money to help sexual assualt victims. How dare he! I wonder if this is the sort of earmark that McCain opposes; I wish someone would ask him about it.

And the worst part is, they were worried about going around Ted Stevens and endangering their relationship with him. I wonder how Palin feels about Ted Stevens now? Somebody should ask about their 'evolving relationship.'

Cycloptichorn
Berger
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:28 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
So, because the cause was worthy, the insubordination was justified and the firing wasn't?
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:31 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

So, because the cause was worthy, the insubordination was justified and the firing wasn't?


It depends on whether or not he was fired for that, or whether he was fired for not taking action against her former brother in law. Now, what process could we use to determine this, hmm? I know! Let's have a bipartisan investigation, ran by the Republican legislature, interview everyone involved and come to a conclusion. Wouldn't you agree that this is not only a legally valid, but appropriate way to deal with an ethics violation issue such as this?

Cycloptichorn
DrewDad
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:35 pm
@Berger,
Take a breath.

Remeber that it's been seven and a half years since Clinton was in the White House.

Breathe out.


Repeat as necessary.
Berger
 
  1  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I think we have run the course on this tempest in a teapot and am satisfied to let the AK courts sort it out now.
0 Replies
 
Berger
 
  3  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 05:46 pm
@DrewDad,
And a good 7 1/2 years it was.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Wed 17 Sep, 2008 06:09 pm
@Berger,
Berger wrote:

And a good 7 1/2 years it was.


The country doesn't agree with you.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain's VP:
  3. » Page 64
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/01/2025 at 09:53:34