Panic Time
| Sat Sep. 6, 2008 9:29 AM PDT
PANIC TIME....Is the McCain campaign scared to death that there might be more to Troopergate than Sarah Palin fessed up to during the ten or fifteen minutes of vetting they gave her last week? Oh my yes. And they're in full whirlwind mode trying to shut down the bipartisan investigation into her activities that's been underway in Alaska for the past couple of months — an investigation that Palin had earlier said she welcomed and would fully cooperate with because, you know, she had nothing to hide etc. etc.
Anyway, that's no longer operative. She's now got a lawyer, her husband has a lawyer, they've managed to get seven witnesses to refuse to testify, they've filed a motion of their own to gum up the works, and they've gotten their allies in the legislature to call for the investigation to be shut down. (It had gotten too "politicized" they said hilariously, after doing everything in their power to politicize it.)
Palin herself, of course, has nothing to say about this since she's currently being kept in a bunker somewhere. I wonder how long it's going to be before there are a dozen camera crews camped outside her house in Wasilla shouting questions at her as she ducks into her car every morning to drive to the office? As near as I can tell, that's the only thing that might finally embarrass the campaign into allowing her to speak without a teleprompter in front of her.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Why should it "embarrass" the campaign? The Reps will just accuse the "liberal media" of hounding her and her family, then slap the sexism card on the table, then accuse the eastern elite liberal media of sneering at and bullying a small town girl (nicknamed "Barracuda") and then, if they really feel pressured, stick her on Larry King for a softball interview and say, "See? Everything's fine." It's a beautiful racket, and it's all theirs -- a Dem couldn't hope to play this game.
In his acceptance speech on Thursday, McCain promised to have an open and transparent administration, which I assume is intended to separate him from Bush administration practices. Yet immediately afterword, he's demonstrating the opposite. He should be hammered on this.
This issue matters because either Palin intervened in an already concluded state police administrative proceeding for human reasons human beings can understand, in which case she would certainly explain herself, or she knows that she abused her authority on behalf of the personal interests of her sister, in which case she would certainly. . .be doing what she's doing.
Sounds right to me.
Now, how does this play out? If the Republicans in the legislature side with her, it's not clear to me how much of an investigation can go forward. The press will dig into the story as best they can, but most of the key players now seem likely to stonewall. Is what's already out there enough to demonstrate improper behavior on Palin's part? I don't think so.
Unless some further evidence makes its way into media reports, I'm going to bet that they can keep this story from going further. She won't look good based on what's already out, but I think that's all. It's a shame, in so far as I think what we already know indicates a petty vindictive streak that ought to disqualify a candidate from major office. But I doubt sufficient proof is going to come out.
I wonder how long it's going to be before there are a dozen camera crews camped outside her house in Wasilla shouting questions at her as she ducks into her car every morning to drive to the office? As near as I can tell, that's the only thing that might finally embarrass the campaign into allowing her to speak without a teleprompter in front of her.
That's a couple of pretty big assumptions on your part -- first, that the press is interested enough to send even one camera on the hunt in this story, and second, that either member on the Republican ticket is capable of feeling even the slightest twinge of embarrassment about anything. They've already got their responses to this nailed down -- any & all criticism of Palin is either sexist or elitist. Or both. In either case, the storylines already been established: she's being victimized by an overzealous press with liberal biases, and she's therefore under absolutely no obligation to answer any of these baseless charges.
This is personal integrity, and abuse of authority, and coverup stuff.
Countercharges of sexism or elitism won't work even for the mildly interested.
Republicans are great at counterthrusting via Drudge or Coulter or Limbaugh or heavens I could go on but the point is that even if by careful cherry-picking they could destroy or neutralize or even harm slightly any part of the substance of the charges, wouldn't they have done so?
Didn't Rove, bless his heart, teach the Republicans that a convincing lie, functionally, is better than the truth because it is more versatile?
mrsaturday pants, this particular story had legs for me from the start, perhaps wrongly. You may be right about the ultimate impact, but as someone who has been around government for a long time, especially local and state government, I've seen any number of good, bad and in-between government officials trip when they try to do something for themselves or their friends or relatives the law and honest public policy doesn't permit. It's hard to imagine any image the officeholder wants to project that wouldn't be undermined by such revelations.
Unless campaigning as "the next Jack Abramoff" or as "a worthy successor to Jack Abramoff" is one's idea of a snappy slogan. (There are so many others.)
I'm not the gambler McCain is--I'm not a gambler at all, in fact- my "bet," such as it is, is that the public will not be satisfied with Palin's responses and McCain's responses and that it won't be pretty.
Submitted by Rick B (not verified) on Sat Sep. 6, 2008 10:30 AM PDT.
"she's currently being kept in a bunker somewhere."
Of course they are. Why not? They are going to have all those used bunkers that Cheney has used for eight years. Got to recycle them, don't they?
New barracuda - I mean Veep - new need for undisclosed locations.
How does it play out?
Here's the Rove playbook on it: Next week when she finally gets hounded into granting some kind of interview or presser, she will state that she would dearly love to comment, but since there is an on-going investigation she simply cannot. Then in a few weeks when the investigation is concluded and she is asked about it she will say that's old news let's move on. Anyone who continues to try to hound her on it will be accused of sexism.
We've seen variations of this play out time after time in the Bush admin.
Submitted by Neil B (not verified) on Sat Sep. 6, 2008 11:02 AM PDT.
The chain email started by "Cynical Alaskan" and making it's way around conservative inboxes says that the trooper needed to be let go because he was threatening Palin's sister, etc. Even so it doesn't justify abuse of power, but we should find out how true that is so at least we can head off the sympathy vote about this detail.
There are so many ways Palin's handlers could be reacting, in so many different forums, if this trooper were really "threatening" Palin's sister. The judge presiding over the latest matrimonial or post-matrimonial proceedings would have heard about it (and therefore so would the rest of us) in open court, and Coulter, Rove and therefore Fox and the crowd would be reveling in their good fortune. I just think we'd know all the details, in spite of the family's (somewhat inconstant) wish for privacy.
If the state police administrative disciplinary proceeding were so flawed that the result put the Governor of the State of Alaska along with members of her family in actual risk of life or limb, who believes for a moment that the Rovians would not have splattered the facts in support of that charge all over the media? Even if Palin didn't respect "procedural nicities" that only ACLU types actually care about. In other words real Americans don't care anyway, so why the silence about the details?
I understand that such administrative disciplinary proceedings, and I plead ignorance of the particulars in Alaska, often are designed to give the subject all kinds of procedural rights and other rights that make effective discipline difficult. Regardless of whether the deck was stacked, or whether the proceedings were fair to everyone, the result is a matter of record, and "further proceedings" available to the Governor's sister should be available to everyone or not available to anyone.
Looks like it may be panic time for the Democrats. At least for the present, the Obama campaign seems to be cutting back budget on certain states, and reallocating it to more crucial states. Nothing odd about that, but it shows they believe McCain is picking up speed in key areas.
Everybody is making fun of the Republicans suddenly crusading as the party of "change," and pointing to a Republican administration as a culprit. That it may be catching on is a problem for Dems. People want change -- basically, change from Bush. They don't care so much about the engine, and Obama still looks to many like a roll of the dice. McCain is a roll of the dice, but if he makes it look like he's the better bet, Dems lose again.
I wonder how long it's going to be before there are a dozen camera crews camped outside her house in Wasilla shouting questions at her as she ducks into her car every morning to drive to the office?
Great image - A candidate for VP and potential president reduced to being hounded by parazzi. Of course, security wouldn't allow reporters to get that sort of close.
Kevin,
I don't think Palin's unavailability to the national press is because they are in panic mode. She is going to be available to the media from day one, but just the media of the base. She is going to be invisible to the national media as much as possible throughout the campaign. Palin's job is to keep the base shored up so that McCain can broaden his appeal. She permits McCain to go back on the late-night shows and call Letterman or Stewart "my friend."
Looks like it may be panic time for the Democrats. At least for the present, the Obama campaign seems to be cutting back budget on certain states, and reallocating it to more crucial states.
Yes, forced to pull back spending in Democratic hotbeds like AK & GA, the Obama campaign is limited to spending their cash in places like NV, CO, NM, VA, NC, OH, & FL -- all states that Bush won in 2004. Tell us more about how panicked Democrats are, dipshit.
What is it with Republicans and vetting Obama opponents? Remember what's his name, 7 of 9's ex husband who was originally slated to run against Obama in the senate?
My prediction: McCain will dump Palin and replace her with Allan Keyes.
Looks like it may be panic time for the Democrats. At least for the present, the Obama campaign seems to be cutting back budget on certain states, and reallocating it to more crucial states.
"Yes, forced to pull back spending in Democratic hotbeds like AK & GA, the Obama campaign is limited to spending their cash in places like NV, CO, NM, VA, NC, OH, & FL -- all states that Bush won in 2004. Tell us more about how panicked Democrats are, dipshit."
-- junebug
Interesting, junebug. I have sincerely enjoyed your posts/comments. I think you've always made sense. In fact you make sense in your response to my comment, which was based on two very simple thoughts:
1. Georgia -- a very red state -- is, with a large black population and Bob Barr running as the Libertarian, possibly in play for the Democrats. It would be a real plus to to it go Blue.
2. Never count your chickens. Never. Democrats have lost two consecutive elections they should have won.
I thought I made a pretty innocuous comment.
But, in your progressive, thoughtful, liberal, peaceful, non-confrontational, civil, freedom-for-everybody way, found it important to call me a "dipshit."
You have struck a blow against the [your paranoia here]. Be proud, junebug.
alibuba, if you don't like being called a dipshit, don't be one: it's really very simple.
as for palin, now we know what the mccain "vetting" team has been doing: strongarming everyone with a story to tell.
i bet alibuba is really proud.
As Alaska ranks 47th in population among the 50 constituents of the Union; further, that the postal abbreviation for same is AK; & that Palin is a huntress of utmost skill, I advise against taking the scandal to her door. To wit, from noted poet & thespian O'Shea Jackson, we have this: AK-47 IS THE TOOL; DON'T MAKE ME ACT THE MOTHERFUCKING FOOL. WE COULD GO TOE-TO-TOE RIGHT NOW.
Ultimately, I think the investigation report is going to come out saying something like this:
Even though no one said explicity "fire Wooten", there was the appearance of pressure from Palin and her administration.
Which will basically leave everything as it is now... allegations, but nothing "proven"
Legally, she is on pretty good ground since the bottom line is that he was an at-will employee. The only thing that could possibly be illegal was if she had no other complaints about the way he was running the department and/or she or someone working for her said something to the affect of "fire him or you will lose your job".
Still, I am really starting to get annoyed at the McCain campaign for not letting her at least do a few media interviews. Limiting her exposure is going to work against him, as basically she is his biggest asset right now.
Legally, she is on pretty good ground since the bottom line is that he was an at-will employee.
"At will" doesn't mean no holds barred. For example, an employee can't be fired for reasons outside of existing termination procedures. Generally speaking, company policies (in this case, governmental procedures) must be followed before an employee is terminated. This is probably the reason that Monegan refused to go beyond the disciplinary measures already meted out to Wooten. It stands to reason, then, that Monegan can't be terminated from his position for refusing to violate existing policies to satisfy a superior. Furthermore, Alaska is 1 of 11 states that has what's called an "implied-in-law" contract, which can be understood to mean that termination decisions are subject to a just-cause standard.
Interesting junebug. If true, then the case would depend on if she has enough evidence of other issues of dissatisfaction.
What really bugs me is that she didn't get all of her ducks in a row better. Sort of disappointing. I still think troopergate isn't going to have much affect on voter preference's.
If I was the McCain/Palin campaign, I would have my surrogates attempt to get all the negative information about Officer Wooten out in public... try and turn him into a villain. This way even if the case goes against her, the damage is mitigated.
I think a lot of it is going to depend on the main stream media coverage.
"You have struck a blow against the [your paranoia here].
Paranoias will have to wait. Today's was just a blow against the moronic -- and completely unsubstantiated --
idea that Democrats are panicking."
idea that Democrats are panicking."
idea that Democrats are panicking."
-- junebug
Did I say that, junebug? No, I didn't say that.
If there's an idea that the Democrats are panicking, it's YOURS, junebug.
You don't want to discuss politics, do you. You want to attack people who you are determined to think disagree with you, even if they don't. And if others pile on, it's even better.
Blow me some more, junebug.
"alibuba, if you don't like being called a dipshit, don't be one: it's really very simple"
Good advice, Howard. Very, very intellectual. So clever. Do you have writers to help you with your comments? You sound so astute, so Republican.
Did I say that, junebug? No, I didn't say that.
Let's rewind the tape, shall we?
Looks like it may be panic time for the Democrats.
Posted by: alibubba on 09/06/08 at 3:16 PM Respond
You're familiar with the term blithering idiot? You're beginning to blither.
Did I say that, junebug? No, I didn't say that.
"Let's rewind the tape, shall we?
Looks like it may be panic time for the Democrats.
Posted by: alibubba on 09/06/08 at 3:16 PM Respond
You're familiar with the term blithering idiot? You're beginning to blither"
-- junebug
You don't like nuance, do you.
"Looks like it may be panic time for the Democrats" was an innocent, play-on-words segue to the rest of my comment. Literate people would notice that. I didn't say the Democrats were panicking, as you accused me of saying. Or that your psychic powers incorrectly deduced was my "idea."
Let's rewind the tape again, junebug. Here's exactly what YOU said:
"Today's was just a blow against the moronic -- and completely unsubstantiated -- idea that Democrats are panicking."
["unsubstantiated IDEA that the Democrats ARE panicking."]
I didn't say the Democrats ARE panicking. That wasn't even expressed as an "idea." I didn't say you, Kevin or I thought they are panicking.
Apparently, you were so ready for me to make an ideological mistake -- or any mistake -- it wouldn't have mattered what I said.
Are you familiar with the term "dishonest little organic facsist brownshirt fair und unbalanced neostalinist/Sean Hannity-wannabe halfwit?" If not, I can translate that into words you can gasp, but Kevin wouldn't like it.
"Are you familiar with the term "dishonest little organic facsist brownshirt fair und unbalanced neostalinist/Sean Hannity-wannabe halfwit?" If not, I can translate that into words you can gasp, but Kevin wouldn't like it."
But his cats would.
Looks like it may be panic time for the Democrats.
Posted by: alibubba on 09/06/08 at 3:16 PM
I didn't say the Democrats ARE panicking. That wasn't even expressed as an "idea." I didn't say you, Kevin or I thought they are panicking.
Posted by: alibubba on 09/07/08 at 12:30 AM
Looks like alibubba may be the stupidest fucking creature within a 10 mile radius of his house.
See? This is a game the whole family can play.
Read the header of Kevin's post (Panic Time). Then, look up the expression "play on words."
See, here's the difference. Kevin's comment is directed at the panicked reaction of the McCain team to their hastily made & poorly thought out selection for VP. His comment makes sense on the face of it, but he still goes on to back it up by pointing out their all-hands-on-deck efforts to shut down the Troopergate investigation, as well as their transparent quarantining of a VP nominee they can't trust in front of a microphone. You, on the other hand, pop off with the lame suggestion that, no, it's the Democrats who seem to be panicking because... well, that's about as far as you get, because you don't provide any examples or evidence for what can only be characterized as a pretty stupid opening sentence in your comment. When you get called on it, you try to walk your statement back with competing explanations -- referring to it as nuance, or as a play on words -- neither of which makes the least bit of sense. Seriously, give it up. And think before hitting "Post" next time.
Oh, I'm giving it up. And thank you for civilly explaining your objection to my remarks.
It seemed to me from a news story (that we both had read) that the Democrats had noticed signs of a McCain bounce, and were reacting to it.
"Looks like it may be panic time for the Democrats" was sarcastic hyperbole, played off Kevin's subject header, meaning it looked to me like the Obama campaign was alert to a threat. The rest of the comment confirmed, in my opinion, why the Obama reaction was a good idea.
I assumed no one would take "panic" literally -- not if they read the rest of my comment.
Obviously, I was mistaken. I should have simply responded to you by writing "Just KIDDING, junebug! Sorry!" But your addition of "dipshit" caused me to hit "Post" a little too soon.
