Why Alaskan Legislators Aren't Rallying Behind Palin

Gov. Sarah Palin may have had an 80% approval rating among Alaska residents during her 1 1/2 years as Governor, but many who worked with her professionally in the legislature don't share their view.

Mike Bradner, a former legislator and Speaker of the House, has waived copyright to this article (pdf) this article published today explaining why Palin does not have their support.

In an editorial yesterday, the Alaska Daily News took Palin to task for failing to cooperate in TrooperGate. It begins: [More...]

Gov. Sarah Palin¹s handling of Troopergate is getting more and more troubling. She has reneged on her pledge, made before becoming the Republican vice-presidential nominee, to cooperate with the Legislature¹s investigation. While stonewalling the independent inquiry, she is trying her side of the case in the press. Working on her behalf Monday,
McCain-for-president operatives ripped into Walt Monegan and the legislators overseeing the inquiry.
Whatever happened to the ³open and transparent² administration she promised Alaskans?

It then goes on to put the lie to Palin and McCain's claim that the investigation is partisan:

All the allegations about partisanship, though, are a typical political distraction. Sen. Hollis French is not the one interviewing witnesses, checking documents and issuing the findings. The investigation is being conducted by a retired prosecutor with a solid professional reputation, Steven Branchflower.

Branchflower enjoyed significant Republican support in the Legislature when he ran the Office of Victims Rights and proposed laws to help crime victims. It’s just not credible to claim that all of a sudden, he’s a partisan hack being manipulated by Team Obama.

While acknowledging the fired public safety officer has given varying reasons for his belief as to why he was fired, it says that doesn't account for Palin's varied explanations:

First she said she wanted a “different direction” for the department. Then she criticized Monegan’s management because he failed to fill vacant trooper positions — even though he could not single-handedly change the salary and working conditions that hinder recruitment. Now, she says Monegan was an insubordinate rogue.

The paper calls on Palin, her husband and her staff to answer the questions before the election. It concludes:

BOTTOM LINE: Palin and McCain are trying to ignite a partisan firestorm that wipes out the Troopergate investigation until after the election.

Also, the Public Record has unearthed this 2000 reference letter Palin wrote for her brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten, attesting to his good character and calling him a role-model.

< Jewish Groups Withdraw Palin Invitation to Iran Protest Rally | Libel Suit Against Grisham Dismissed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Palin's stonewalling may succeed (3.50 / 2) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:13:10 PM EST
    that's not unraveling it, as if the allegations were unfounded. It's delaying it and using Bush-Cheney type tactics to derail it.

    Bottom line: She won't be cleared before the election if the report is delayed. She will be a VP candidate with a cloud over her head.

    Jeralyn, it's so obviously politicized now (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:50:15 PM EST
    with Democrat French an active Obama supporter (while 'managing' the investigation and wording unfortunately, that it might result in an "October surprise") that it's embarrassing to me that you write as if it were a serious investigation at this point, what with her authority to fire the person in that position at will and with emails showing he was going around the governor's office to get things he wanted which was not part of her agenda (whether you agree with him or with her on policy).

      The former legislator Mike Bradner is a liberal Democrat, and you might have mentioned that in your link to his extremely sarcastically-written article.

      I used to respect this place run so well by you for its focus on actual information but now it's only 'advocacy' -- and accuracy or full disclosure be damned.  And, oh, let's not have longer-time members post anything that might be seen as ANTI-our own candidate.  No, not in the U.S. or on forums formerly balanced.  

      While I like your 4-note allowance I don't like constantly seeing you warn people before their 4th note and belittling their messages by characterizing them as ONLY anti-Obama ticket.

      I have admired greatly what you have/had done and told many it was my favorite forum because it was so balanced, but it no longer is.  I still respect what you do and, generally, how you do it, but talkleft is no longer a place where I feel we can honestly post our reactions as people who were members during the primaries.

      And I've seen notes that Obama has been vetted and when I explained he had not, my notes are silently deleted instead of someone letting me know as happens on other forums.
    They are not false rumors and forewarned is usually better.

      I haven't complained until now but this thread, not identifying Bradner is upsetting to me.

      I don't expect to see this note up for long either.
    But I am replying directly to you so that at least I know you'll see it.


    This Was A Non Issue (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    You fail to mention the fact that the only person who politicized the investigation was Palin and the McCain camp--by obfuscating and stonewalling.

    Before nomiation: full speed ahead.

    After nomination: frantic efforts to delay or quash it.

    If there is nothing to hide, why all the muscle?


    The vast majority of us here (3.00 / 3) (#19)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:09:20 PM EST
    are liberals, and we like Mr. Bradner's article.  A lot.

    And treat it as revealed truth.

    You should join us.  You'll feel better for it.


    Groupthink is your answer. Ugh. (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    What about the memos she released? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:05:08 PM EST
    The ones that back up her story?

    Was that "stonewalling?"  

    I didn't anything here about those memos, and it's been several days now.


    I dunno if the stonewalling will succeed - (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:15:11 PM EST
    the article linked to at the start of this thread is a bit old, already.

    If even a significant minority of the Legislature feels about her the way the article says, she's not getting out from under it.  


    Yep. I'm sure there are more than a few (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:18:38 PM EST
    CA legislators from both sides of the aisle who aren't very fond of the Gouvernator these days...

    um (none / 0) (#12)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:19:03 PM EST
    Because she gave them oil money?

    Since when does popularity trump the law? Short of OJ, thats not how it works.


    Commenter Chip (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:22:25 PM EST
    who wrote the comment I am replying to was previously banned on TalkLeft using two other names. Third time's a charm, his/her account and all comments have been vaporized.

    Jeralyn--define "succeed" (none / 0) (#36)
    by rdandrea on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 09:32:02 PM EST
    To me, all the stonewalling is going to accomplish is to give the story legs until the election.

    The Anchorage Daily News ran no less than six articles about "troopergate" today.  The more it drags on, the more Palin bleeds from 1,000 cuts.

    If that's "success" according to your definition, fine (by the way, that's snark), but success like that can only be described as a Pyrrhic victory.  


    Palins stone walling (none / 0) (#38)
    by Birdstheword on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:31:08 PM EST
    more has to be done to get this over with before the election. If not we will end up ultimately spending even more of taxpayers money digging into this and uncovering the truth. If she has nothing to hide then why not co operate. I once thought I may support the ticket but its such a joke and they have made a mockery of things I wouldnt suggest anyone support the ticket now.

    the topic (2.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:54:23 PM EST
    is troopergate. Please save your discussion of other topics for an open thread. Thank you.

    troopergate (none / 0) (#39)
    by Birdstheword on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 06:35:27 PM EST
    It is apparent now that Palin just had an axe to grind. Her venegeance has cost others their jobs and disminished their characters, Totally unfair as she hides behind govt to break the law herself. How can she be trusted to reform anything when she uses these vengeful tactics to get even with anyone who stands in her way. I feel sorry for wooten and Moregan who stood in her way.I say The committee should keep pushing it and get this resolved before others end up in their shoes.

    I wish I could get a reference letter that (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 04:52:07 PM EST

    And she doesn't even mention that he's her brother-in-law.  
    Calm, gentle, trustworthy, obvious dedication to traditional values.


    Wooten married Palin's sister in 2001 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Inky on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:12:47 PM EST
    Moreover, do you mean to suggest that you have never held a high opinion of someone's character only to realize later that he was not the person you thought he was?

    Some people here will say anything to trash Palin.


    And some people will (2.66 / 3) (#15)
    by Faust on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:33:05 PM EST
    say anything to defend her.

    Welcome to the intertoobz.


    What are you saying? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Inky on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    I looked it up and Wooton married Palin's sister in 2001. Do you have other information>

    um (none / 0) (#26)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    So Palin didnt know Wooten at that time?  Just dropped a recomendation on him as an act of random kindness?

    Or was he dating Palin's sister at that time?

    I dont see anything wrong with it, I just think its funny you can't put that together.


    So what if he was dating her sister? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Inky on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    I've written several letters of reference for personal friends. I never once questioned my own ethics in the matter, because I believed that what I was writing was the truth. I'm sure that Sarah Palin believed what she was writing as well. To suggest otherwise strikes me as pure PDS.

    My first response (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Inky on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 08:53:01 PM EST
    was merely to point out that Palin wasn't his sister-in-law in 2000. The previous commenter wrote she was and suggested that it was a major ethical oversight that she did not acknowledge the relationship in her letter of reference. The commenter even wrote "wow" in apparent disbelief of Palin's lack of ethics.

    So don't tell me that I'm the one who's making a big deal of this. I just wanted to set the record straight. Do you have a problem with correcting a false statement?


    Casting the title of this post as a question, (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 04:48:43 PM EST
    i.e. "Why aren't Alaska Legislators rallying behind Palin?",

    is the answer:
    (A) They hate her guts.
    (B) They know what she's like and fear for everyone's safety should she be elected.
    (C) They're playing some strange double-negative kind of thing so as to promote her winning and thus foist her on all of us and/or get a better job for themselves.
    (D) All of the above.

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:11:58 PM EST
    "Saint Sarah the Pure", ... "the Coco Chanel of the great north" ... "Palin has always skated on mistakes, received that public 'bye', a seeming Joan of Arc in teflon armor."... "she wants the choice rhetoric true or not."

    But, apparently worse than that, she blindsides legislators by doing things like not telling them about a decision she's making which will affect them or their constituencies, leaving it to them to find out when the reporters come calling.  She makes it difficult, if not impossible, for legislators to meet with her to discuss issues, despite the legislature and governor's offices in the Capitol being on adjoining floors.  She doesn't discuss issues.  And she didn't make friends in the way pols do - by talking things out and working to resolve issues.  It seems it's her way, or the highway.

    I pick (A) and (B).


    well (none / 0) (#27)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 06:39:54 PM EST
    Ive never seen people who know a VP pick say they are afraid to death of her or him even as they admire her or say nice things.

    It does concern me a bit.


    or its proof she's a real (none / 0) (#31)
    by sancho on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 07:22:48 PM EST
    government outsider! and thus will bring people power, republican crusader style, to washington. you may think i'm joking, and i may too, but i know a lot people who think along those lines.

    they vote republican (none / 0) (#37)
    by sancho on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 01:44:57 AM EST
    come hell or high water or both. you know a lot of people do--regardless of what you and i think.

    Not so much 'Unraveling' as 'Being Stonewalled' (none / 0) (#10)
    by Don in Seattle on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    The AP article's lead:

    The abuse-of-power investigation of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was unraveling Wednesday, with most key witnesses refusing to testify, new legal maneuvering and heightened Republican pressure to delay the probe until after Election Day.

    Palin initially welcomed the investigation, saying "hold me accountable," but she has increasingly opposed it since Republican presidential candidate John McCain tapped her as his vice presidential running mate.

    yes, derailed is more accurate (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    than unraveling

    Unraveling by sheer partisan fervor on both sides (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by andrys on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 05:51:05 PM EST