Interesting lack of MSM coverage on this one. Hmmmmmmmmm

Wow, that ought to make headlines. Er, maybe not. *sigh*

Now Lee's going to have to come up with some other fantasy for the 'women in chains' fantasy. What a pity.

I guess we will have to wait for our vindication from the MSM until after NObama wins?

I shouldn't be surprised anymore, but it never ceases to amaze me that leftist propaganda machine so consistently fails to cover any news that doesn't harm conservatives, or that doesn't help liberals. This is the first I've heard of the results of that inquiry.

The liberal illuminati once again demonstrate their commitment to gaining power, and not spreading truth.

On second thought, Lorie - could you please delete my #3? I'd rather not give Lee any ideas, if they aren't already swimming around in the swamp in Lee's noggin...

Also, I guess the MObama thugs have suppressed the "Whitey" tape.

Jim, ABC has announced that the witch was cleared, so that kinda shoots your comment about the MSM, doesn't it?

I do agree that the media, overall, is biased overall, for one side or the other. Same as some radio stations, biased one way or the other.

This will continue forever, so what is the problem. You believe every thing Rush Limpdick says, I don't. Until they all tell the truth, why even listen to them?

And if you get all bent out of shape because I called her a witch, well check out her religion. You did it to THAT ONE, and called him a Muslim. Muslim's do not have Reverends, do they? They have Ayatollahs, right?

Poor old Allen has his dong dragging in the dirt, only because he's doing a belly crawl to excuse his stupidity about Sarah Palin. We could all say 'told ya so' but her rating as the most popular governor in the United States should have given even the dimmest of the dimwits a clue. She goes after crooked politicians. That doesn't make her one. Democrats got whacked by a woman and their wounded ego drove them on a mission of revenge, which failed miserably. How the H*** can a democrat protect the U.S. when they gang up on one female and lose? To quote Michelle Malkin, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wow, so with a properly authorized legislative investigation not going well for her, she asks another board with hand-picked appointees to do a parallel investigation, and (shocka) they *ahem* "clear" her. And the day before the election, no less! And suddenly... yay! We can forget all about that other report that said the opposite!

Maybe Ted Stevens can have his canasta club overturn his convictions.

"Rush Limpdick". That's a good one Allen and your classmates think it's kind of funny too. But the principal does want to speak to you after recess.

Allen, when the MSM ground on the first report for 3 weeks and now we find out that no laws were broken and it only gets a passing mention in the news, something is wrong. My point hasn't been shot down, it has been quite handily upheld.

The MSM has been dying for a while now, but journalistic integrity and REAL journalism died a gasping breath this year.

I see that, not surprisingly, Allen and his ilk dismiss anything not going their way, and then prove how intellectually superior they are to us conservatives by using toilet humor.

I'm sure the European liberal elite are really impressed that you're one of them, Allen. Maybe you should try to impress those folks in the movie, Deliverance.

Scrapiron, you Pal-niled it.

Allen,

The News reporters are supposed to report the new research and gather facts.
Who
Where
What
When
When reporting and some facts maybe in dispute they are supposed to present both sides.

A commentator such as Rush or Combs is allowed to comment on a report and take sides. Se we expect that they are going to favor one side or another. They can explore the why and maybe even look to motivation.

Yeah, that legislative investigation was really nonpartisan and unbiased. It was led by an Obama supporter who promised an October surprise, then the media buried the lede by emphasizing the huge finding that she was guilty of not controlling her husband.

Bunch of libs don't understand that women who marry strong men do so because they want someone who will stand up and not be "whipped." Silly liberals.

Yeah, that legislative investigation was really nonpartisan and unbiased.

Oh, and you think the Republican hand-picked board was less partisan?

the media buried the lede by emphasizing the huge finding that she was guilty of not controlling her husband.

You must have read a different report. This one said, ""I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."

Bunch of libs don't understand that women who marry strong men do so because they want someone who will stand up and not be "whipped."

Wow, you sailed right over the cliff with that one.

Brian, two points you missed:

1) The report says "I find" -- note the singular. This means that the investigator (an old crony of the fired guy) is speaking purely for himself.

2) Later in the same report, the investigator also said "Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

I understand how you missed that. It was buried in the mainstream media and Democratic Underground talking points.

J.

Further, Brian missed the point that this investigation was conducted by the ONLY entity with jurisdiction to impose penalties upon the Governor. Any other "investigation" is just a witch hunt.

Don't forget, Brian does not care to attribute any lawful power to a body created and ordained by the Alaska constitution for the express purpose of settling issues pertaining to Alaska state personnel because he has determined their bias. He prefers to confer all jurisdiction, all power and all decision-making to the body appointed at the moment to determine guilt or innocence. Open bias, statements proving that bias and actions proving that bias and the fact that said bias by the very person who led the legislative panel was dutifully ignored by the most of the media means nothing to him. She's been tried and convicted in the "Court of Brian". Anything else is a travesty and Palin should be reprimanded in a fashion that assuages his sense of propriety.

I'm not surprised that the two bodies came to a different decision. Personally, I think she could have done more to stop others from contacting Monegan. But that's not what's really at issue. Monegan claimed that she fired him because he would not fire Wooten. The facts belie that assumption.

What Brian continues to ignore in his ruminations is that A) she did not fire Monegan. He quit. and B) when she offered him another position (rather than fire him) it was because of insubordination. After all the time that he was being contacted and supposedly pressured into firing Wooten, he still kept his job. It wasn't until he crossed a line in a way completely unrelated to the Wooten situation that he was dealt with.

================

"You did it to THAT ONE, and called him a Muslim." ~ Allen

Who is this "you" you speak of? You wouldn't be attributing that to everyone here, now would you? You wouldn't be painting with a broad brush, now would you? You wouldn't be an asshole, now would you?

"You wouldn't be an asshole, now would you?"-Oyster

Oh yes he is!

Let me clarify my statement that the two bodies came to different decisions. There were two issues at stake here; two claims.

1) the claim that Palin abused her power by orchestrating a coordinated effort to pressure Monegan to fire Wooten.

2) That she fired Monegan because he didn't fire Wooten.

As to point 1, I don't believe she headed up any coordinated effort. As a matter of fact, at least one person who contacted Monegan over Wooten's status clearly said she did not ask him or pressure him into contacting Monegan. At the very least, she abused her power by NOT exercising it. In that, I mean she could have tried to stop those she knew were contacting him.

It is my opinion that Wooten staying on the job was an affront to the people of Alaska and that his superiors had every right to fire him, yet didn't due to union pressure and that those who contacted Monegan repeatedly didn't NEED to be told this. I believe they primarily acted out of a sense of right and wrong regardless of who he was related to.

As to point 2, both panels agreed that Monegan's departure was not the result of any wrong doing on Palin's part. She was well within her rights to remove him from his position because of circumstances not related to Wooten.

Here is the description of the Personnel Board from the Alaska Dept of Administration website:

The Personnel Board, also created by the Personnel Act, is an independent agency composed of members appointed by the Governor. The Board hears complaints of Ethics Act (AS 39.52) violations brought against Executive Branch employees and disciplinary appeals from classified employees not covered by collective bargaining, approves amendments to the Personnel Rules and acts on recommendations for extensions of the partially exempt or classified services within the Executive Branch.

The Board would indeed have the jurisdiction over the "Troopergate" issue.

So who makes up the Personnel Board?

Sec. 39.25.060. Personnel board. (a) The personnel board is composed of three members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature meeting in joint session. The term of office of a member is six years. A vacancy in an unexpired term shall be filled by appointment by the governor for the remainder of the term. The appointment is subject to confirmation in the same manner as a full-term appointment. (b) Members of the board may not be employees of the state. Not more than two members of the board may be members of the same political party. (c) A board member may be removed by the governor only for cause. (d) A member of the board may receive a per diem allowance and transportation expenses incurred in carrying out the member's duties.

Of the 3 members of the Personnel Board Palin only appointed one of them and he was approved unanimously by the legislature, the other two were appointed by Palin's predecessor. Also, the makeup of the board is two Republicans and one Democrat.

Board Members are not paid other than for expenses, are not state employees and can only be fired by the Governor for cause, which means they are not beholden to the Governor in any way. They are more of an independent investigative body than Branchflower was, and unlike Branchflower this is their area of expertise and Jursidiction.

Palin dragged McCain down like a lead sinker. She was slow poison to the campaign.

How different things would look today if Pawlenty or Ridge were McCain's running mate!

Yeah, she "mobilized the base," but what states did she add to the ticket? Not one. McCain is down to the absolute base. On the other hand, with Ridge or Pawlenty, there would be several states in the rust belt and Midwest which would be comfortably with McCain.

I worked and donated money to McCain in 2000, but I couldn't support the hard right-wing that Palin represents.

Galoob, then don't. Who is stopping you? In the real world, Palin resuccitated McCain's campaign and she continues to do so. I don't know what alternate universe you are watching, but what you say ain't so. ww

Thing is, cleared or not, non-political people don't get into the wonky reasons why. That previous report put the stink of corruption on her, though probably not enough to hurt whatever chances she has for '12.

Jay made this point already, but it cannot be repeated enough -- the legislative report was the opinion of the hyperpartisan Obama supporter who promised an October surprise. Many others involved in that investigation disagreed with his findings. But even that hyperpartisan with an agenda was not able to find any "there" there (as the Clintons loved to put it).

"You must have read a different report. This one said, ""I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110 (a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act." -- Brian

Maybe you should read the report, Brian, not just the DUmmie talking points. How did she supposedly violate the Ethics Act? By not controlling her husband -- just like I said. Do you guys really want to defend a drunk driving, kid tasering, old man's life threatening trooper and attack Palin for not "controlling" her husband when he continually pointed out that having a guy like that roaming the state with a badge and a gun might not be a good thing for public safety?

If Obama wins today in the landslide all on the Left have predicted the Obama thugs will have even more power to stifle all questions and criticisms and control all "legislative investigations." It is telling that you would defend a hyperpartisan who promised an October surprise and authored a report half the people on the panel disagreed with to go after someone for not controlling her husband when he tried to do something in the interest of public safety, or at the very least the safety of his family. Bizarre. You guys appear on the brink of a big win, yet you still act like you are desperate by arguing the inarguable. I may be clinging to my religion, but you guys are clinging to hate.

"I worked and donated money to McCain in 2000, but I couldn't support the hard right-wing that Palin represents."

Are you using Palin as your excuse to reject McCain? Right. Because we all know what a stalwart McCain supporter you've been all along. You haven't spared a kind word for him since long before he chose Palin or anyone felt he had any "hard-right" tendencies by choosing her.

"That previous report put the stink of corruption on her, though probably not enough to hurt whatever chances she has for '12."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but judging by previous comments you've made here, which clearly indicate your political leanings (not that you haven't clearly spelled them out or anything) I get the impression you're not at all unhappy that "non-political" people won't know all the facts and that you're not exactly pleased that the "stink" of corruption hasn't completely ruined her.

In fact, Oyster, it bothers me greatly. As you pointed out it's no secret that I believe much more in the Democratic agenda than that of the Republicans (about 80% or so), but I have no interest in dirty wins.

If a majority of the American people - working in an environment of perfect information, no spin - preferred a centre-right government, well then that's the one I'd want the country to have. I will - generally speaking - not defend Gov. Palin's policy agenda, but neither will I be a party to cooked-up conspiracy theories and half-truths designed to smear her reputation to independents.

I'm only interested in clean wins. Honestly.

Parthenon, I'm happy to hear that you prefer a "clean win" letting the chips fall where they may. On the other hand, your statement...

"If a majority of the American people - working in an environment of perfect information, no spin - preferred a centre-right government, well then that's the one I'd want the country to have."

...isn't quite how I'd put it myself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in thinking that maybe you didn't say exactly what you meant there. It sounds more like you're just agreeing with whatever the majority wants. I'm assuming what you mean is that if the majority of the people prefer a center-right government, then that's what they should get. *I'd* say I don't have to agree with it and I don't have to "want" them to have it. I merely have to cede that decision to a majority. But they're not working in "an environment of perfect information, no spin", so it's really moot.

Well exactly. Good catch.

If Lee Ward hadn't banned me for making too much sense, I would go over to Wizbang Blue and gloat. Oh well, he would just do the same thing he always does. Congratulations to Sarah Palin and her family for standing up against a system that enables child abusing State Troopers and the Democratic Party that supports them.