CNN On Troopergate

Josh Marshall whines that CNN is not following his histrionic lead on Troopergate. CNN investigative reporter Drew Griffin writes:

The Alaska state trooper at the center of a probe into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power says he has “made mistakes, and I’ve learned from those mistakes.” But in an exclusive interview with us, Mike Wooten, Palin’s former brother-in-law, also denies some of the biggest allegations against him.

In our interview, Wooten rattled off a disturbing number of “mistakes” he’s made in his career. He admits tasering his stepson, illegally killing a moose and admits to multiple reprimands in his file. A state trooper investigation even found credible evidence he was drinking in his patrol car. But please tell me if you think his tale — dubbed Troopergate by Gov. Palin’s political enemies — is really the scandal that will bring down the newest star on the political scene.

(Emphasis supplied.) Simple answers to simple questions - no, it won't. Making a victim of Wooten is impossible. He clearly is unfit to be a law enforcement officer. Josh Marshall and Co. won't be able to make a scandal of trying to get him off the Alaska state trooper force.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< How Religion Guides Sarah Palin | Waking Up On McCain/Palin; Bush's Third Term >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    A convention bounce (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:45:34 AM EST
    with a GOP pollster having a tie race.

    Hardly surprising.

    Obama will be up again by midweek.

    It's likely true that (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by frankly0 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    after both convention bounces wear off, Obama will have a very modest lead, as he did before -- I'd guess 2-3%, if no other important news crops up.

    But why believe that lead will hold up?

    If there's anything that's obvious to me, it's that the Republicans have not by any means thrown their best stuff at Obama. We haven't heard about Wright or Ayers for ages.

    Yet I don't have any idea what Obama could throw at McCain that he hasn't already thrown. He can emphasize the economy all he wants, and talk about how McCain is just four more years of Bush, but I think a lot of that effect has already been factored into public opinion. Certainly he'd get something out of such a push, but I seriously wonder whether it could match whatever the Republcans have in store.

    A lead for Obama of less than 5 pts after both convention bounces have receded into the past strikes me as so vulnerable that it's more likely he would lose than win the election.


    Because Bush is President (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:16:50 AM EST
    That's why.

    Important to remember... (none / 0) (#27)
    by NealB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    ...what I forget every day: daily polls don't matter. It's what happens on election day. Obama/Biden continue to make their case positively, rationally, and formally; that's the fight. Those are the strongest punches they can throw. They're rallies Friday and yesterday look like that's what they're doing. Sideshows may take a daily toll, and responders to daily polls will respond to those distractions; a poll vote doesn't cost them a dime. On election day though, when I voters vote, I think there's a different, more serious frame of mind for voters who make the effort to get out and vote.

    I am curious to see (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST
    What happens when the GOP machine unleashes the sleaze attacks that are coming. All that has gone on so far, with the tie, has been before they really start trying to smear Sen Obama.

    I may be wrong, but I believe the last big test for the democratic ticket is how much damage the really ugly ads that never came during the primary (despite everyone howling about how ugly it was) will do. If they can do half of what they did to Kerry to Obama then I think they are in real trouble.

    I personally have always believed this was the real achilles hill of the Obama campaign.


    Josh went off the deep end a long time ago, IMO. (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:52:59 AM EST
    His blog had some of the most vile and nasty comments about Hillary I've ever read.  And he perpetuated this nastiness, even tried to defend himself in the process.  Thanks for reading him so we don't have to.  

    BTD, you continue to be one of the sanest voices in the blogsphere.  Digby and Anglachel are two others I go to for great writing and analysis.  Thanks.  

    And that's when I got off the TPM bus (none / 0) (#80)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    When he lapped up the Hillary & Bill Are Closet Racists spin.    

    Whatever the outcome of this election, one of the casualties for me is the blogshpere, and in particular TPM, which I foolishly believed was a reliable alternative news outlet.  I was an idiot.


    Sadly, Josh is losing it (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:56:49 AM EST
    Yesterday, the blog was obsessed with an image (a California school) that had flashed on the screen, briefly, behind McCain when he spoke. There were several posts on the matter but I, perhaps because of some kind of outrage defect, never could figure out why it mattered and why so much time was being devoted to it. (The school hadn't given permission to use the image, but that discovery was a late development. Why the image itself had originally revealed McCain's deep evil, hypocrisy, stupidity, dishonesty or WHATEVER, was never clear to me.)

    Liberals, "progressives," Dems have got to stop this obsessive hope for a "gotcha" moment, no matter how minor, beside the point, of little interest to or impact on most people, and/or the magical character-destroying scandal.

    It's the economy, stupid.

    Not only is that the most important issue right now -- it is the Democrats' strength. Use it.

    Many in the Obama camp seem to have decided that the only way to beat a Republican is to run like a Republican. To win, they think, everyone in the beauty contest has to demonstrate the same "talent" rather than demonstrating how really good they are at their own thing.

    There ARE things that Democrats are actually much better at than character assassination. It's time to start focusing on them -- and stop wasting time with things that just make them look petty.

    They want another "macaca moment" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:53:13 AM EST
    because that's easier than fighting a real political battle.

    Gaffes are the crack cocaine of politics.


    Agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by WS on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:02:56 AM EST
    Wow, I completely agree with you.  Economy Economy Economy.  I'd like to add Bush Bush Bush in there.  

    This on the day that Fannie Mae... (none / 0) (#47)
    by lambert on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:37:57 AM EST
    ... and Freddie Mac went t*ts up.

    Incredible. "It's the economy, stupid." Not green backdrops. Just because the progs are obsessed with details about how the Village really works -- it's their workplace, after all -- doesn't mean that the rest of the world is. If I want to read about fake controversies, I can go read the sports pages, where the writing is better anyway.


    Josh Marshall (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by frankly0 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:59:21 AM EST
    presumes to upbraid CNN for its supposed failure to do "investigative journalism", when among the important stories that he and TPM was pushing was a mixup in the RNC where the wrong photo was used for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, complete with breathless updates on the true subject of that picture, and what that mixup must imply about McCain and the Republicans?

    How do you get a sense of perspective when you've either lost it or never had it?

    Nice post, BTD. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by alexei on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:02:31 AM EST
    I have been trying to tell my friends, colleagues and fellow Democrats this. I agree that Wooten as victim won't fly with most voters. In fact, people will agree with Palin.

    What I have gathered from this story is not going to bring Palin down.  Unless there is more to this story or a pattern of abuse of power, I don't see any real political fall out.

    BTW, I still don't get this huge reaction from people on Palin.  Reminds me of the reaction for Obama.  What's up with the "bright, new, shiny toy"?  I thought we were picking the President and VP and not "American Idol".

    Read Anglachel's journal today. It's Willie (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    Brown on Palin.  He nails it.  You can also find his article in the San Francisco Chronicle.  I recommend everyone read it because he states very simply why the country has gone ga-ga over this woman and why the Democrats are in trouble.

    thanks for the tip (none / 0) (#61)
    by bjorn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:46:54 AM EST
    that was very interesting.  I like the way Anglachel explained Willie Brown evaluated her for her strengths so he can learn how to defeat her.  So many people on the left are looking at her weaknesses instead, and that is not working so far.

    This is why Willy has survived in the crazy (none / 0) (#76)
    by allimom99 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:54:24 PM EST
    world of CA politics - if you don't learn what works for the opponent, you'll never be able to figure out how to use it against him. Like Willy or not, he's a pol's pol - deadly shrewd and smart in his element.

    At some point (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by frankly0 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    you should consider the possibility that, when you expect that the American people will respond to TrooperGate and the Walter Reed photo mixup as you do, you are simply projecting your own feelings onto them.

    That's the problem with echo chambers. You can easily convince yourself that your reactions are the reactions of virtually every human being when nothing could be further from the truth.

    Defending this guy (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Dave B on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:52:30 AM EST
    Will reinforce an idea of Democrats supporting incompetent government, along with the idea that we need the two mavericks to shake up Washington.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by JAB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM EST
    You might want to get your facts straight first, as has been shown here on different comments many times.

    she fires the librarian because she refuses to aid Palin in censoring books; then she fires Monegan for reasons having nothing to do with his fitness or performance.

    She didn't fire the librarian - she asked for the librarian's resignation, and then the next day rescinded the request (which she had every right to do as the librarian was an appointee who served at the pleasure of the mayor).  It had nothing to do with censoring books - that was a rhetorical question asked of the librarian to see how she would respond.  Even if Palin wanted to ban books, no books were ever removed from the library, so it's a moot point.

    Monega, again served at the pleasure of the governor.  The investigation is about whether she did fire him for not doing "personal" business, but Monegan was also offered another top state job (I think it was Director of the Alcohol Control Board, but I could be wrong), but he refused to take the job.

    This is a reply (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    to a now deleted comment. The comment was deleted because the commenter has been banned from my threads due to his desire to comment on my commenting.

    There shall be no commenting on my commenting in my threads. By anyone. Doing so will lead to an immediate and automatic ban from my threads and a deletion of all comments from said commenter.


    Monegan (none / 0) (#43)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    Monegan was "let go" without any severance package. Interestingly enough, the man who replaced him, had to "resign" after two weeks on the job because it was discovered that he had received a reprimand for sexual harrassment on his previous job and failed to disclose it.

    Palin said she never knew about the allegation, and the guy said he didn't volunteer the information because he thought everyone knew.

    Oh, and he left with a $10,000 severance package.


    troopergate (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by southernguy on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    CNN showed the trooper last night. He denied drinking in the car even though he was found guilty of doing it. He admitted to tasering the kid but his side was that the kid wanted him to do it. He admitted to killing the animal in this manner but did not know it was illegal at the time. He denied threating the Palin family. He has been married 3 times and he is just 36 years old. I am sure if he says he did not do these things he did not do them. I am sure the official over him had good reasons to keep him on....besides he is only supposed to protect the people of his state and abide by the laws. Time will tell what is true and what is not true. I agree if she was guilty of pushing for him to be fired, it would have been better to admit it. I am pretty sure legally she could have fired the his boss anyway since she was Governor.Both sides should let the process take place rather injecting their slant on the subject. Just curious... has any reporter asked the other wifes why they divorced. I realize it does not have anything to do with his job....but it might have a lot to do with his credibility in the national scene.

    this guy is whining that the MSM (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kenosharick on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    is not doing its job? That is rather ironic, as palin will probably be more vetted and investigated by the media in a couple of weeks than Obama has been in two years.

    And I Know Josh Is Claiming (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by BDB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:45:09 AM EST
    that he saw through McCain in 2002, but I don't believe it.  Not entirely.  Because he has never been this vicious towards McCain as he has been since he selected Palin.

    Again, Palin is awful, but why is that surprising.  She's the GOP VP selection and the GOP is awful.  McCain is awful.  

    I think Josh's problem is with strong women. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Angel on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:15:13 AM EST
    He would not be going after Huckabee or some other neanderthal the same way he is going after Palin and they have basically the same experience.  He was absolutely viscious towards Hillary during the primaries.  It was really ugly.  Josh lost a lot of his support because of this.  

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by joanneleon on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    Plus, trumping up this story, insisting on it being a big deal, will only further discredit the blogosphere, whose credibility is waning right now due to the questioning the identity of Palin's baby's and the pretty strong and frequent news coverage it has gotten.

    I'm afraid that the blogs are not going to be able to provide valuable investigative reporting for the general election this time, and I really think some operatives have been around for months helping that along, but the progressive blogs were absolute fools to let it happen.  

    Arthur Silber (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by BDB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:55:45 AM EST
    On how Democrats seem determined to lose by being condescendingly tone deaf on Palin:

    SEPTEMBER 06, 2008

    Gunning to Lose
    Last evening, I listened to a local radio talk show here in Los Angeles. The show has a conservative orientation, but it's not what I would call "hard" right, like Limbaugh or Hannity. It's moderately conservative, and the commentary falls well within the boundaries of sanity most of the time (perhaps generous boundaries at moments, but it is not cringe-inducing as a rule). The show offers views that I almost always disagree with, but they are views well within accepted and acceptable American political opinion.

    The cohosts (a man and a woman) were discussing Sarah Palin, the major topic on every such show these days, right and left. The woman said she hadn't been certain she was going to vote in November; neither candidate excited her that much. But, she continued, after seeing and hearing how many Democrats and liberals treated Palin, she was now determined to vote. I didn't take down exactly what she said, but it went pretty much like this: "After hearing these awful people go after Sarah Palin, I am definitely voting in November. I'm going to vote against Keith Olbermann."

    I suspect there are quite a number of women (and probably men) who are reacting in this manner to the sickening spectacle provided by many Democrats and liberals -- the same Democrats and liberals who so insistently declare their own dedication to "pluralism" and "diversity."


    Beyond the misogyny that the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have revealed, a hatred which is staggering in its intensity, what most strikes me is the absolute tone-deafness of many Democrats. They appear to be completely incapable of grasping that people actually exist -- that there are human beings who lead happy, successful lives -- who hold views diametrically opposed to their own, and that such people are disgusted by the attacks on Palin that do not address her political views and policy prescriptions, but focus on the fact that Sarah Palin is not "the right kind" of woman. Such Democrats and their supporters convey one message above all: not content to target their criticisms on Palin's views about the proper role of government, they tell us that Palin is not "our kind of people." More than that, by reducing Palin to certain biological attributes and then heaping scorn and contempt on the attributes they have isolated, they announce that Palin and others like her are not fully human, not in the way the Democrats themselves are. Palin is one of them. Whenever this kind of perspective makes itself known, you can be certain of one thing: nothing good is going to happen to them.

    And then the same Democrats are astonished that voters don't intend to support them. "Don't they know what's good for them?", they demand to know -- "good for them" according to the Democrats. So much for pluralism and diversity.

    As with all of Arthur's writing, I highly recommend you read the entire thing.  The reason the GOP's politics of resentment works is because there are too many "progressive" voices willing to prove them right - that they do look down on some classes of people.

    It's the Hillary in the primary situation (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by joanneleon on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:07:33 AM EST
    all over again.  McCain probably has had this strategy since the NH primary.

    Troopergate (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by TANK1 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST
    I have been following the Troopergate story for months in the Anchorage Daily News.   I doubt it is enough to bring her down or even hurt her with the GOP base.

    But I think the Troopergate plus the firings as Mayor will hurt her with those undecided Independent voters.  I think those voters want our leaders to work together and this will show she has a history of not doing that.

    Mayoral firings - administration change (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:37:49 AM EST
    The 3-term mayor, Jon Stein, was/is a Democrat.

    The request for the librarian's firing was done at the same time letters went out for a few others' resignation letters.

    Even if the librarian's was complicated by the question whether she'd be able to go along with censoring of books if requested (none was ever requested even when another person took the librarian's job before the start of the 2nd term), it was done as part of the group resignation-request letters.

      This happens when a new administration goes into the White House too.  Resignations are requested. Most are accepted, and some stay.  A small town though, usually not, I'd think.  But it's said to have been an acrimonious, tough campaign.

      This is like Hillary and the Travel group.  No cause has to be given.

      Whatever else she did, she won re-election by a huge margin later.

    I think this is a serious waste of campaigning time and makes the Dems look weak.


    Clearly unfit to be an officer?! (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by AF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    How can you presume to say this when there was a disciplinary hearing and, rather than being terminated, he was suspended for five days?  Do you not believe in due process?

    And how do you defend the firing of the public safety commissioner who did nothing more than refuse to reopen the disciplinary hearings after they were concluded?

    Irrespective of what Trooper Wooten did, Governor Palin clearly acted improperly in firing the public safety commissioner, lied about it, and is now obstructing the investigation.


    Omigawd! (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    I disagreed with the Alaska disciplinary hearing?!?!?!?

    Pssst, I have been known to disagree with the Supreme Court on occasion.

    Your histrionic comment is so amusing.  


    You have no idea what the facts are (none / 0) (#62)
    by AF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:49:36 AM EST
    You are taking Palin's accusations as true.  

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    You have no idea what has occurred in this case obviously. I suggest you read the news coverage on the report that was released regarding Wooten that led to his suspension.

    Your hysteria is unbecoming. Soon you will be yelling at the American People because they do not agree with you.


    I read the news (none / 0) (#67)
    by AF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:07:35 PM EST
    Wooten shot a moose without a license and tasered a kid when the kid asked to be tasered.  Stupid things to do but it does not make him unfit.

    Palin has accused him of making threats but that has not been proven.

    I simply can't understand why you have no problem with a governor trying to override a government employee's collectively bargained due process rights to settle a family score.  

    Even if she's in the right on the family issue, what she did was completely inappropriate.  It is another example of how Republicans, once in office, treat the government like their own private property.


    Really? Honestly? Not unfit? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    A law enforcement officer, the representative of the laws of the land, VIOLATES both law and probably departmental policy and that does not make him unfit?

    I am curious, forgetting any political bias, what would make him unfit in your opinion? If he had actually carried out his threat and shot someone?


    so because the kid asked to be tasered it's (none / 0) (#77)
    by allimom99 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    perfectly OK that he did so? Between the stuff he confessed to and the drinkyng he was found guilty of, he should have been fired! Collective bargaining is not meant to shield a clearly unfit individual from discipline (and no, 5 days' susension is NOT sufficient in this case - there are police reports on some of the threats). Do we really want to be in the position of defending an abusive ex-husband because we don't like his sister-in-law's politics?

    and (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM EST
    by your logic, you should also be asking:

    "A public official such as a governor -- the representative of the laws of the land, allegedly violates both law and the rules of ethics and that does not make her unfit?


    Three points (none / 0) (#79)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    1. I was not making any kind of political commentary, I was pointing out that in a blog titled TalkLeft dedicated to progressive values do we really want to defend this guy?

    2. I am sorry, but there is a big difference between "alleged" and admitted, so are you really equating accusations which have yet to be proven to stuff the guy has admitted to?

    3. As you yourself has pointed out to posters many times (which I agree with btw) redirecting a comment to what someone else did is not really relevant.

    I am not picking a fight here, but I am really stunned by your comment, specially in light of the fact that I there was no politics in my observation. We should NOT lose sight of what we stand for just because we are in the middle of an election.

    yes on a blog named TalkLeft (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 03:58:27 PM EST
    that is dedicated to protecting the rights of those accused of crime, we want to and will defend the guy, particularly since he hasn't been convicted in a court of  law of any serious offense.

    And by the same logic (none / 0) (#82)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    and even considering your opinion about Sarah Palin why is it not correct to extend the same courtesy to her? Why can't we disagree with her, argue that she is not qualified, point out her positions that we disagree with, but not accuse her of thing she has not been convicted of?

    And if we do then why can't we do the same to all parties? Mind you my beliefs strongly go towards innocent until FIRMLY proven guilty, but still someone who agrees to reprimand in their record has admitted to some degree of guilt.


    Palin is running for vice-president (none / 0) (#89)
    by AF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    Not Alaska state trooper.  

    I will stipulate that Mike Wooten is not fit to be vice president and Sarah Palin has done nothing that would warrant being fired from a unionized job.  

    That doesn't mean Palin didn't abuse her power or that the question is irrelevant.


    You are arguing against further investigation (none / 0) (#87)
    by AF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:27:20 PM EST
    Into what appears be another example of a Republican elected official abusing the power of office, because you believe, based on what you read in the newspapers, that the intended victim of that abuse of power did certain things that he has been accused but never convicted of doing.  

    And you suggest that we are betraying progressive principles.  


    Actually I am not arguing that at all (none / 0) (#90)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 08:33:18 PM EST
    It is interesting what is read into other people's posts. All I said at the top (if you look back up there) is:

    "A law enforcement officer, the representative of the laws of the land, VIOLATES both law and probably departmental policy and that does not make him unfit?"

    I was just questioning the comment that his actions didn't make him unfit to remain a state trooper. To me it does.

    All the rest, switching the argument to Palin, saying that it shouldn't be investigate, where did I say that? But I do question your statement from a progressive viewpoint: law enforcement officers who do not uphold a standard are not fit to serve, and they should be held to a much higher standard.

    And again as I said he was not convicted, but he ADMITTED to some of the wrong doings. Why is this somehow less damning that if he was convicted by others while maintaining his innocence?


    If you agree (none / 0) (#91)
    by AF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:36:07 PM EST
    that the investigation into Palin's apparent abuse of power should continue, I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

    Whether Wooten is fit to serve as an Alaska state trooper is between him, his employer, and his union.  He isn't running for office.  Furthermore neither you or I have any insight into the facts beyond what we read in the media.  

    The point is that Palin appears to have abused her power, and Wooten's reported wrongdoing is no excuse for that.


    It seems 80% of Alaskans disgree with you. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Bob K on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    Don't you think they may have a better handle on what goes on in their state than you do?

    I find it unsurprising the legislature might go on a witch hunt in order to smear Palin because she refuses to kowtow to the good old boy network. They fear her popularity.


    Because she has high approval ratings (none / 0) (#88)
    by AF on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    We should ignore her record.  Thanks for that.

    Potential Abuse Allegations? (none / 0) (#28)
    by factchecker on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:24:05 AM EST
    I`m sorry I guess I don`t see it as histrionic to want this matter properly addressed especially before the election. It is especially troubling to see the new stall tactics being employed with Bailey`s refusal to honor his depositon date. Strange that would also happen to the 6 other aides of Palin who also declined to be deposed all of a sudden. Non cooperation is happening after McCain`s people went to Alaska. Is that a coincidence? To the state legislature`s credit they seem to have reached an accommodation by issuing supoenas for the 7 aides and accept Gov Palin`s word that she would cooperate. Further they are moving the timeline up for release of the findings. Lets hope this time obfuscation will not will out. I see truth as the good guy and whatever happens I can be happy if the good guy wins this time. And lets remember the issue here is not what kind of person Mr Wooten is. Its whether Ms Palin used the power of her office in an abusive manner and who accessed Mr Wooten`s personnel records? That 22 min tape of Mr Bailey with a trooper supervisor asking why Mr Wooten was still employed while using Todd and Sara by name is troubling.

    Good luck with that (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:26:16 AM EST
    Have you heard the tape? (none / 0) (#33)
    by factchecker on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    I can`t believe anyone listening to that tape and having a cursory understanding of the timeline on this matter would not see red flags unless they just don`t want to. I`m tired of having to accept a pig in a poke. I want to know if a potential presidental candidate has abused her powers for personal reasons. If she has done it before she will do it again and I for one do not wish to live through four more years like the last eight. I don`t take breaking the law lightly especially after what this current crowd in power have been doing the last eight years. Do you feel lucky and want to roll the dice? I don`t!

    In Anglachel's comments on Willie Brown's (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by esmense on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:03:09 AM EST
    analysis of Palin she says, "He isn't looking to criticize her but to defeat her."

    The point is, Troopergate is not a tool that will defeat her -- or McCain -- even though it is an event that has convinced you that she must be defeated.

    For many people of my generation, who served or had loved ones who served in Viet Nam, the manipulations, dishonesty and privileged arrogance revealed by W's "service" with the National Guard provided a clear demonstration of character flaws and attitudes that disqualified him from the Presidency. But that "scandal" never was politically useful --  because, in a country that hadn't had a draft in 30 years, it simply had no application to or impact on their lives. "Chicken Hawk" had meaning when there was a draft, not so much meaning when people were no longer required to serve.

    Most people will see Troopergate as a domestic and local issue that doesn't have much to do with the serious issues of this campaign. And, many may, as they did with Bush's Guard story, begin to fault the Democrats and the media for pushing it.


    For crissakes (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:49:04 AM EST
    Do you people know a damn thing about politics?!?

    Who cares what you or I think, this is about winning in November. Sheesh.


    I understand BTD's frustration. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob K on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    Monagan worked at the behest of the governor and can be fired at any time for any reason. Instead she offered him a different position. He refused. The trooper is still working. Undue influence can not be irrefutably demonstrated and she violated no laws.

    What are you trying to accuse her of? A lack of morality?  She still has an 80% approval rating. So it seems her morals fit well with the other Alaskans. I doubt they are as unfamiliar with the circumstances as people thousands of miles away trying to make a mountain out of a molehill while looking for a gotcha moment.

    Don't waste your time. Find something that will resonate.


    Abuse of Power (none / 0) (#31)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    I say it points to an abuse of power on the part of Palin.

    In 2000 she wrote Wooten a glowing letter of recommendation. She changed her tune during the divorce battle.

    If Wooten was such a terrible trooper, he should have been fired. But he wasn't. He got a ten day suspension shaved down to five. This was before Palin became Governor. Once she became Governor, that wasn't enough.

    And if the facts are as Palin says, that she didn't fire Monegan because he wouldn't/couldn't fire Wooten, then why all the stonewalling? As the Anchorage Daily News pointed out, before Palin was nominated for VP, she was all for the investigation. If anything, she and her aides should be pushing to resolve this thing quickly, and give their full co-operation. Instead, she lawyered up, and her aides who formerly said they would co-operate as well.

    Honestly, Palin would get a hell of a lot more sympathy if she just admitted, yeah, I tried to get Wooten fired, I honestly thought he was a danger to me and my family, but I went about it the wrong way.

    Wooten is still on the force, and his union is filing a grievance complaint against Palin for improperly accessing and distributing information from his personnel file.

    Wooten's not really a victim (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by andrys on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:26:26 AM EST
    The circumstances (which can be considered) are extraordinary.

    In a read of the 2005 typewritten note by Palin about Wooten, written before she became Governor, writing as a family member and describing incidents, many known to be true -- if the Page 2 incidents were also true that he threatened Bristol with using the taser on her too when she reacted emotionally to the use of it on the boy (verified and very much against guidelines), he really shouldn't stay in that job.

      But the Police Officer Unions tend to stand behind officers in these situations.


    The Public is the Victim (none / 0) (#48)
    by rachelann on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 10:41:38 AM EST
    No Wooten isn't the victim, the public is.  This is just poor reporting by CNN.   Wooten had already been investigated and reprimanded when Palin took office.  The allegations are that she fired the Public Safety Commissioner because he wouldn't do her bidding, and repeatedly told her that it was not appropriate to ask him to fire Wooten.  But even if your sympathetic because of the Wooten allegations, rather than saying she fired because she was unhappy with the handling of Wooten she has given several different reasons for his firing.  The concern is more the ease with which she seems to be able to avoid the truth.

    She approved of the legislature's investigation originally saying she had nothing to hide, but as evidence has come out against her she has become not just uncooperative but actively interfering in the investigation.

    excuse me! (none / 0) (#63)
    by cpinva on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:51:49 AM EST
    where, exactly, is anyone defending trooper wooten's behaviour? please, do tell.

    his actions aren't the issue, gov. palin's are. her's, and her family's and members of her staff's actions, with respect to trooper wooten, are what's being investigated by the alaska state legislature. let's please not forget that. she currently has a cloud hanging over her head, due to what appears to be a clear conflict of interest.

    ethics are ethics, you don't get to check them at the door, when they prove inconvenient.

    Explain how Palin's actions (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    to get rid of Wooten are subject of criticism without arguing Wooten should not be fired.

    Too funny, the lot of you.


    sorry BTD, you're terribly wrong on this. (none / 0) (#66)
    by cpinva on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:06:05 PM EST
    as an attorney, you really should know better.

    conflict of interest is conflict of interest, period. see: ethics

    if you don't get this, i fear disbarrment in your future.

    i don't recall anyone (except you, so far) saying wooten shouldn't have been fired for his actions. but, that assumes you know all the facts, you don't. further, state troopers don't serve at the pleasure of the gov., for this very obvious reason.

    interestingly, gov. palin had no issue, until her sister got involved in a (apparently) nasty custody battle. no record of complaints, by either the sister, or any other member of the family, seems to exist before this.

    your assertion defies logic.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#71)
    by BDB on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:17:34 PM EST
    and the funny thing is that a lot of "progressives" would single Wooten out as a cop who should've been fired or at least gotten a more severe punishment if all they knew is what he did, but because he's tied to Palin are now somehow defending cops who are found drinking behind the wheel of their patrol car and who taser kids (I don't care if they kid "asked" for it).

    Wooten is the kind of cop that gives other cops bad names and that the disciplinary system gave him a laughable 10 days off is ridiculous.  

    Palin's motives might not have been pure, but this seems like a political loser to me.  And that so many Democrats fail to see that would be shocking if they hadn't been losing Presidential elections for forty years.


    Who among us, (none / 0) (#68)
    by Moishele on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    believing that our sister and nephew had been abused by Wooten, would not do whatever they could to have him fired?  

    It may be that Palin's office exerted influence inappropriately, but pushing it is not going to make the Democrats looks good. The Obama campaign is already operating under a dark cloud of sexism because of the way they treated Hillary.

    Do we really want to call Palin on the carpet for trying to get rid of one very bad apple? It's not as if there aren't a host of other issues with her that we can cite.

    Who among us? Me (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    I don't believe that any government official should improperly use their office to handle a personal family matter. There were proper channels.

    I want to see the final report on whether she abused her office. The trooper's conduct is of no moment to me. Nor do I agree he is unfit for office. Nor should that be the topic.


    Well then... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Moishele on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Two Separate Issus (none / 0) (#69)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    Wooten was disciplined. You might not agree with the punishment he was given, but that's another story. Case closed.

    Palin becomes Governor, still wants Wooten out. Okay, bring NEW charges against him, not the old killing the moose with an illegal permit (cos Wooten used the father-in-law's permit and Sarah and her family also ate the moose) and the Taser incident.

    Instead, Palin, through her aides, make calls to Monegan (along with e-mails) putting pressure on him to fire Wooten based on the old allegations. And Todd Palin is cc'd on all these e-mails. Monegan refused. He's terminated. No severance package.

    Guy who replaces Monegan leaves after two weeks due to sexual harrassment allegations. He gets a $10,000 severance package.

    Outcry ensues, investigation is launched.

    Before nomination, Palin promises full co-operation.

    After nomination, Palin lawyers up and stonewalls.

    No, it won't (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 12:21:43 PM EST
    Where's my EASY button?

    And Josh and others have wasted a valuable week going after it. Early voting in Ohio begins Set. 30.  

    To Josh:  It's the economy, stupid.

    The $10,000 Pay Off (none / 0) (#72)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sun Sep 07, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST

    "It's getting more and more difficult to believe that Governor Sarah Palin's mishandling of Troopergate is attributable only to incompetence. On September 6th, 2008, KTUU Channel 2 reported flat out that Governor Palin, for all intents and purposes, "bought" the resignation of former Public Safety Commissioner Charles "Chuck" Kopp for $10,000.

    KTUU confirms that a $10,000 severance payment made to Chuck Kopp concomitant with his resignation was accompanied with a specific promise from Kopp not to sue. Even though Kopp had not threatened to sue, the Palin Administration had Kopp sign the release anyway. Commissioners are normally considered "at will" employees, and generally receive no severance pay. The Department of Administration says that money for the payment will come from the office of the governor."

    "In her public explanation, Governor Palin said she decided to toss in the severance pay in addition to the salary Kopp received during his short tenure to compensate for the "abuse" he'd been put through.

    Governor Palin needs to knock off the charm act and the tap dancing, take control of this situation, and engage in full disclosure. Don't forget, Watergate started off small, too - nothing more than a third-rate burglary."

    McCain/Palin 08 for Clinton v. Palin 2012 (none / 0) (#92)
    by moblou on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    Here's to the team of Mavericks- McCain/Palin. No Obama, no way and no how. Yes, I am a former Hillary supporter and he thinks, the audacity of Obama, that he can win without Hillary. Good luck you arrogant __!!! Thanks Obama, DNC and MSM for putting the Republicans back in the Whitehouse. Now I can see 2012- Hillary v. Palin. Two women to end the "good ole boy system", once and for all!! It's McCain/Palin for me this year. Bye, bye Barack!!!