Palin announces she will not cooperate...

[Wilson L. Deaton]

A CNN poll showed 70% disagreeing with her decision.

Wonder how that looks here.

Wilson

[Gina Stevenson]

will not cooperate ... with what, pray tell! (unless I missed a link that I didn't think I saw in your post that will tell us)

Ck'd again ... nope, no link to where this poll might be found. ;)

[Susan Unger]

will not cooperate ... with what, pray tell! (unless I missed a link that I didn't think I saw in your post that will tell us)

Ck'd again ... nope, no link to where this poll might be found. ;)

Don't know with what...but this article tells ya [Don't have time to read it] - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/palin.investigation/index.html

[Ryan Scott]

I'm unaffiliated and I think this refusal is politically expedient and ethically questionable.

[Bruce Carriker]

Didn't she just tell Charlie Gibson that she welcomed the investigation and had nothing to hide?

First McCain on the economy; now Palin on this investigation. This ticket flip-flops about as frequently as a fish out of water.

Both houses of the Alaska legislature are controlled by the Republicans. How can this be construed as a partisan act when it's being conducted by a body controlled by the Governor's own party?

You can pretty much count on a whole series of legal maneuvers designed to postpone any testimony or final findings of the investigative panel until after the election. Can you imagine the media outcry and the righteously indignant screams of conservatives if this was Obama and Tony Rezko, and Obama was trying to impede the investigation until after the election?

There's that liberal media bias at work again.

[Dale Cozby]

Concerning liberal media bias: what a lovely facial expression of the picture they chose. I am sure doesn't have anything to do with the story, other than it is the emotion and countenance they want to infer she has in relation to the story they are telling.
What is wrong/right with this picture from a media standpoint:
1. The eyes are looking off to the side. This is seen as a facial tell that a person isn't being truthful. thus snap a photo when the person looks left or right.
2. Her mouth is slightly upturned on one side as if to say something. This tell appears to indicate she is talking out of one side of her mouth. It conveys she is holding back information.
3.I love the close cropping of the picture on CNN. It always makes a person look more in your face and sinisterly evil when you do that.
4. Notice it is a Getty images, meaning it is a stock photo they picked out just for this story.

Bruce concerning legal maneuvers to win an election...maybe she could call Obama and get some pointers.:laughing He has done his share.

I found these tidbits from an AOL report:

1. Monegan( the guy that got fired) was an at-will employee who could be fired for almost any reason

2. Monegan admits no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten.

3. Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Hollis French, indicated the probe was politically motivated.

4. French had said the results of the investigation could constitute an "October surprise" for the McCain campaign. He later apologized.

5. The campaign also insists that French, Branchflower( the investigating lawyer) and Monegan are friends, even though the men say they only know each other professionally and have never socialized.







Afterthought: Yes, I did learn something in my marketing classes in college.

[Rich Hudson]

any other answer :rolleyes:

I am likely to be pleased each time Governor Palin indicates she won't cooperate, with anything at any time.

On a related note, David Brooks has a nice piece in the NYTimes this morning.
"Why Experience Matters"

[Wilson L. Deaton]

will not cooperate ... with what, pray tell!

The "legislative investigation into the firing of her public safety commissioner."

Wilson

[Bruce Carriker]

I found these tidbits from an AOL report:

I found these from the Anchorage Daily News, (http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/478090.html) which is probably a better source...certainly closer to the action.

1. Monegan( the guy that got fired) was an at-will employee who could be fired for almost any reason

2. Monegan admits no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten.

But it wasn't Monegan who initiated the investigation. It was the Republican-controlled state legislature that initiated the investigation. And the Legislative Council is 8 GOP and 4 Dem, but the vote to call for an investigation was 12-0...not exactly a division along partisan lines.

3. Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Hollis French, indicated the probe was politically motivated.

Senate President Lyda Green, a Wasilla Republican and member of the Legislative Council, said the investigation is "absolutely" needed.

4. French had said the results of the investigation could constitute an "October surprise" for the McCain campaign. He later apologized.

He did say that the report could constitute an October surprise, but that was merely in reference to the planned October 31 completion date of the investigation.

5. The campaign also insists that French, Branchflower( the investigating lawyer) and Monegan are friends, even though the men say they only know each other professionally and have never socialized.

This is the same campaign that demanded an apology over the "lipstick on a pig" remark; the same campaign that lies about the Bridge to Nowhere; the same campaign that says the economy is really okay. Citing "the campaign" as a source means nothing. Why should "the campaign" be given any more credibility than the statements of French, Branchflower, and Monegan?

[Bruce Carriker]

Five Alaska Republicans, likely at the behest of the McCain campaign - though that is not in the story, have now filed suit to stop the investigation of Governor Palin. They hope to stop it completely, but if not, to at least delay it until after the election. Why?

For those who say it is not germane, I beg to differ. It has been pointed out that Commissioner Monegan was an "at will" political appointee, who could be fired at any time, for any reason. That is true. HOWEVER, if Governor Palin used her "at will" firing discretion to settle a personal grudge, THAT IS RELEVANT to the election, as it relates directly to the temperament and governing philosophy of the Governor.

[Brady R. Lane]

Five Alaska Republicans, likely at the behest of the McCain campaign - though that is not in the story, have now filed suit to stop the investigation of Governor Palin. They hope to stop it completely, but if not, to at least delay it until after the election. Why?

For those who say it is not germane, I beg to differ. It has been pointed out that Commissioner Monegan was an "at will" political appointee, who could be fired at any time, for any reason. That is true. HOWEVER, if Governor Palin used her "at will" firing discretion to settle a personal grudge, THAT IS RELEVANT to the election, as it relates directly to the temperament and governing philosophy of the Governor.

Seems to me if it was a personal grudge that prompted the firing, then that same animosity and pressure could have been brought to bear against her former brother-in-law state trooper who is still employed by the state of Alaska. I understand that he is probably protected from this sort of thing as a lowly trooper. But you know, if she really put her mind to it, I am sure she could have his head on a silver platter if she wanted it; especially if the accusations against him are true. And we have to assume they are true, don't we? Those same assumptions seem to have been brought to bear upon her, haven't they?

She's just a mean-spirited, mindless, right-wing, Christian conservative anyway. We have to assume she is guilty of all that she is accused of.

By the way, I thought she was cooperating with the appropriate state agency. I read somewhere that she had turned over all documents & emails pertinent to the investigation. I do not have a source for what I have read, but somewhere I have read it this week. Don't ask for the source; I aint got it.

[Jon Bemis]

"I think it's fair to say that the governor is not going to cooperate with that investigation so long as it remains tainted and run by partisan individuals that have a predetermined conclusion," O'Callaghan said. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iLn4BZ3L_-UcTHAXEq5ZdgST6UyA

Ain't politics a wonderful thing? There are folks that will demonize her no matter what she does, others who will support her regardless. The problem I have is rushing to judgment and not extending any consideration because of political affiliation.

[Wilson L. Deaton]

By the way, I thought she was cooperating with the appropriate state agency. I read somewhere that she had turned over all documents & emails pertinent to the investigation.

Earlier she had been cooperating but the campaign just made the announcement that cooperation was over. It is that announcement that prompted this poll.

Wilson

[Bruce Carriker]

Seems to me if it was a personal grudge that prompted the firing, then that same animosity and pressure could have been brought to bear against her former brother-in-law state trooper who is still employed by the state of Alaska.

That would have been too obvious.

I understand that he is probably protected from this sort of thing as a lowly trooper. But you know, if she really put her mind to it, I am sure she could have his head on a silver platter if she wanted it; especially if the accusations against him are true.

From all accounts, they seem to be true. I'm not sure that's relevant to this discussion.

And we have to assume they are true, don't we? Those same assumptions seem to have been brought to bear upon her, haven't they?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! That's the purpose of the bi-partisan investigation, which she initially said she'd cooperate with.

She's just a mean-spirited, mindless, right-wing, Christian conservative anyway. We have to assume she is guilty of all that she is accused of.

Your choice of words isn't very flattering towards your candidate, and don't reflect well on your own attitude, either. I don't know anyone who's used those words to describe her on these boards.

By the way, I thought she was cooperating with the appropriate state agency. I read somewhere that she had turned over all documents & emails pertinent to the investigation. I do not have a source for what I have read, but somewhere I have read it this week. Don't ask for the source; I aint got it.

She was initially going to cooperate, but has apparently changed her mind since becoming the VP nominee. She now wants the investigation removed from the legislature and turned over to some state panel, whose members she appointed. Now THAT would certainly be a fair and impartial investigation, wouldn't it.

Why can't the legislature be allowed to do their job?

[Glenn Messer]

I'm a registered independent and I would never, under any circumstances, willfully cooperate with any political investigation directed at me. They are always powered by a political agenda and I would make them leap through every hoop to get anything. (Check out Charles Rangel.) If suspected law breaking is involved then it should be a matter for police investigation and not a political investigation. It reeks with conflict of interest. Don't forget who she defeated to get where she is today --- republicans.

[Bruce Carriker]

One thing to keep in mind...this investigation was ONGOING when she was nominated. At that point, she was claiming she would cooperate.

This IS NOT something that has been created since she was put on the McBush ticket. It was part of Palin's record BEFORE she ever accepted the VP nomination. The fact that she's now a VP candidate in no way obligates the Alaska legislature to terminate or suspend an investigation they felt was necessary two months ago.

And this investigation IS relevant to the campaign. I for one don't want a Vice-President (or a possible President, should anything happen to McCain) who would use the power of the office to settle personal grudges.

[Ryan Scott]

I think she would have had every reason not to cooperate from the beginning. The fact that she changed her mind right before the election is troubling.

[David Parker]

Wow. The errors about Palin just keep piling up.

By law, the Alaska Personnel Board (http://www.akemplaw.com/wiki/2008/09/04/the-alaska-personnel-board/) is the proper venue for such complaints. Palin has filed a complaint (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/09/02/19/ethicsdisclosureform9-1-08.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf) against herself (yes, that's right) and is insisting that the board handle the complaint instead of a legislative committee that has now become politicized. She welcomed the committee action before it's Democrat members went public with biased statements.

To say she appointed the Alaska Personnel Board is just false. Sarah Palin took office Dec. 4, 2006.

From the Alaska State Employment Law website (http://www.gov.state.ak.us/boards/rosters/board077.html):

The current Board members are as follows:

Debra English, Anchorage, appointed 01/08/2004, and reappointed 01/29/08

Laura Plenert, Ketchikan, appointed 03/10/2004

Alfred Tamagni, Sr., Anchorage, appointed 03/01/2006

All of the current members were appointed by her predecessor. She reappointed one of them. And they are required to hire a special prosecutor anyway...

"Under state law, the board must hire an independent counsel for complaints against the governor to determine whether evidence of a violation of the state ethics act exists."

Palin Seeks Review of Monegan Firing Case (http://www.adn.com/monegan/story/514163.html)

She has released emails and other substantiation (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?&articleid=1119495&format=&page=1&listingType=2008pres#articleFull) demonstrating that Monegan was replaced for good cause. Monegan says nobody asked him to fire the trooper, and he is still working today.

[Ryan Scott]

The issue isn't whether she did something wrong or not; I don't believe she did. The issue is why she's chosen now to stop cooperating.

[David Parker]

The issue isn't whether she did something wrong or not; I don't believe she did. The issue is why she's chosen now to stop cooperating.

She says it is because the investigation has been politicized by the Democrat members. She will obviously cooperate with the Personnel Board's investigation.

[Glenn Messer]

I heard this morning that the investigation is being pushed by an abbreviated legislature. Apparently they remain in session when the full legislature is adjourned. The report said that 5 members of the legislature have filed to stop proceedings by the abbreviated legislative body. They are asking that it be delayed until the full legislature is back in session. I hope I got this right.

[Roland Hamilton]

I'm a registered independent and I would never, under any circumstances, willfully cooperate with any political investigation directed at me. They are always powered by a political agenda and I would make them leap through every hoop to get anything. (Check out Charles Rangel.) If suspected law breaking is involved then it should be a matter for police investigation and not a political investigation. It reeks with conflict of interest. Don't forget who she defeated to get where she is today --- republicans.

Someone who is a public servant should welcome the opportunity to be investigated, no matter the motivation or how unfair the charge may be. Anyone who truly has confidence that they have done no wrong should show some class and some humility, cooperate fully with any investigation with a smile, bend over backwards to answer any question, and let the chips fall where they may. It might even be a good opportunity to let your faith speak to the public through your actions. The appearance of character and integrity is always critically important to those who serve the public, even those who don't claim any religious faith. I could never vote for any candidate who had the attitude that you've described. :basic04

[Glenn Messer]

Someone who is a public servant should welcome the opportunity to be investigated, no matter the motivation or how unfair the charge may be. Anyone who truly has confidence that they have done no wrong should show some class and some humility, cooperate fully with any investigation with a smile, bend over backwards to answer any question, and let the chips fall where they may. It might even be a good opportunity to let your faith speak to the public through your actions. The appearance of character and integrity is always critically important to those who serve the public, even those who don't claim any religious faith. I could never vote for any candidate who had the attitude that you've described. :basic04

This current event forum is like going to Walmart. Every time I stand in those long lines for 15 minutes just to pay for 2 items I swear I'm never going back again. But here I am.


Roland, I would cooperate fully with any investigation by any law enforcement agency. I would freely give them any information they asked for.
However, a political investigation is a different matter. I would comply with any legal obligation in such an investigation, but I would make them jump through every legal hoop to get anything. Why??? Because political investigations are rarely (almost never) attempts to discern the truth about a situation, but are veiled assaults against political opponents. In the last 15 years we have spent millions of US taxpayer money and tied up the resources of government agencies for long periods of time to conduct political investigations. And for what? To reprimand Bill Clinton? To discover that Hillary's memory is weak? To find that Scooter Libby lied to investigators? (how many millions did that cost?) To discover that Larry Craig may have solicited gay sex in an airport toilet stall? And are we now going to have a political investigation to find out who hacked into Gov. Palin's email sifting for information? I wouldn't hold my breath on that one! I'm still waiting on a political investigation to tie Berger and stolen documents to the Clintons --NOT!
Political investigations are a waste of taxpayer resources and time. If accusations of criminal conduct have a basis in fact, let law enforcement conduct the investigation, otherwise, forget it. I know, some proceedings are reserved to legislative bodies, but I still think it's a bad idea.

On another thread somewhere we've talked about church accusations and trials. We can't even agree on that one. In this day and time, I do not for a minute believe that most legislative members can be nonpartisan in a political investigation.

But I'm an old geezer; my memory is probably worse than Hillary's. So what do I know?

Edited to add: Do you realize how much misery and torment a political investigation would put you and your family through? They usually open the investigation with one charge and then go after anything else they can find and your family is fair game. Are you sure you would "welcome" such an investigation?

[Roland Hamilton]

This current event forum is like going to Walmart. Every time I stand in those long lines for 15 minutes just to pay for 2 items I swear I'm never going back again. But here I am.

Well, at least you will have the satisfaction of getting something in return that isn't cheap and doesn't come from China. :)

Roland, I would cooperate fully with any investigation by any law enforcement agency. I would freely give them any information they asked for.
However, a political investigation is a different matter. I would comply with any legal obligation in such an investigation, but I would make them jump through every legal hoop to get anything. Why??? Because political investigations are rarely (almost never) attempts to discern the truth about a situation, but are veiled assaults against political opponents. In the last 15 years we have spent millions of US taxpayer money and tied up the resources of government agencies for long periods of time to conduct political investigations. And for what? To reprimand Bill Clinton? To discover that Hillary's memory is weak? To find that Scooter Libby lied to investigators? (how many millions did that cost?) To discover that Larry Craig may have solicited gay sex in an airport toilet stall? And are we now going to have a political investigation to find out who hacked into Gov. Palin's email sifting for information? I wouldn't hold my breath on that one! I'm still waiting on a political investigation to tie Berger and stolen documents to the Clintons --NOT!
Political investigations are a waste of taxpayer resources and time. If accusations of criminal conduct have a basis in fact, let law enforcement conduct the investigation, otherwise, forget it. I know, some proceedings are reserved to legislative bodies, but I still think it's a bad idea.

On another thread somewhere we've talked about church accusations and trials. We can't even agree on that one. In this day and time, I do not for a minute believe that most legislative members can be nonpartisan in a political investigation.

But I'm an old geezer; my memory is probably worse than Hillary's. So what do I know?

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I still maintain that if you're a public servant and you are the one at whom an investigation is directed, and if some allegation of wrongdoing is made, the proper response is not to whine about unfairness and play little legalistic games. Openness, transparency and honesty in the public arena is so incredibly important that it really can't be overstated. Even being honest is not enough, one needs to appear to be honest in the eyes of the public for whom you work. Claim the moral high ground, go beyond what is legally required, hold your head high, and prove how unfair the accusations are. That's the best way IMHO, and I think it's also the way that reflects best on the Christian faith.