PDA

View Full Version : The monster wears a skirt


wantafanta
05-09-10, 00:26
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/02/vanity-fairs-sarah-palin-_n_703412.html

The author of the blistering Vanity Fair profile on Sarah Palin says he wanted to write a positive piece, but was shocked by what he learned as he researched his story.

"The worst stuff isn't even in there," Michael Joseph Gross said on "Morning Joe" Thursday. "I couldn't believe these stories either when I first heard them, and I started this story with a prejudice in her favor. I have a lot in common with this woman. I'm a small-town person, I'm a Christian, I think that a lot of her criticisms of the media actually have something to them. And I think she got a bum ride, but everybody close to her tells the same story."

In the profile, Gross paints Palin as an abusive, retaliatory figure with an extreme ability to lie.

"This is a person for whom there is no topic too small to lie about," he said. "She lies about everything."

Asked about Palin's political future, Gross said it depends on what the media lets her get away with.

"If we decide to let her keep lying and getting away with it, she's gonna still be around," he said. "But if we start returning to the standard that a politician has to talk with people, and a politician has to tell the truth, then she's outta here, because she can't stand up to that."

Gross added that he takes exception to criticisms that he wrote a "hit piece" against Palin.

"I started this with every good intention toward her," he said. "I was just shocked and appalled at every step at what I found. And I wrote this story sort of against my will. It wasn't what I wanted to write, it wasn't what I wanted to find. It was what was forced on me by the facts."

The intensity of Palin’s temper was first described to me in such extreme terms that I couldn’t help but wonder if it might be exaggerated, until I heard corroborating tales of outbursts dating back to her days as mayor of Wasilla and before. One friend of the Palins’ remembers an argument between Sarah and Todd: “They took all the canned goods out of the pantry, then proceeded to throw them at each other. By the time they got done, the stainless-steel fridge looked like it had got shot up with a shotgun. Todd said, ‘I don’t know why I even waste my time trying to get nice things for you if you’re just going to ruin them.’ ” This friend adds, “As soon as she enters her property and the door closes, even the insects in that house cringe. She has a horrible temper, but she has gotten away with it because she is a pretty woman.” (The friend elaborated on this last point: “Once, while Sarah was preparing for a city-council meeting, she said, ‘I’m gonna put on one of my push-up bras so I can get what I want tonight.’ That’s how she rolls.”) When Palin was mayor, she made life for one low-level municipal employee so miserable that the woman quit her job, sought psychiatric counseling, and then left the state altogether to escape Palin’s sphere of influence—this according to one person with firsthand knowledge of the situation. The woman did not want to be found. When I finally tracked her down, her husband, who answered the phone, at first pretended that I had dialed the wrong number and that the word “Wasilla” had no meaning to him. Palin’s former personal assistants all refused to comment on the record for this story, some citing a fear of reprisal. Others who have worked with Palin recall that, when she feels threatened, she does not hesitate to wield some version of a signature threat: “I have the power to ruin you.”

aurora89
05-09-10, 01:34
yeah, not even remotely surprised. My friend's brother was actually with the secret service (or her bodyguards during the pre-election stuff--is that the SS?) and was really excited to be working for her because he was a devote Republican and really stoked about the McCain/Palin team. By the second day of work, I believe he quit (or begged to be reassigned) and ended up voting for Obama just because he didn't want her in power. :yik: That's bad! This just completely corroborates with his story, so I'm not at all shocked.

wantafanta
05-09-10, 02:43
yeah, not even remotely surprised. My friend's brother was actually with the secret service (or her bodyguards during the pre-election stuff--is that the SS?) and was really excited to be working for her because he was a devote Republican and really stoked about the McCain/Palin team. By the second day of work, I believe he quit (or begged to be reassigned) and ended up voting for Obama just because he didn't want her in power. :yik: That's bad! This just completely corroborates with his story, so I'm not at all shocked.

And yet another eye witness account! What is scary is that this egotistical nut-case was just a stone's throw from the white house. And even today, there are millions of Americans who would vote her for president! She has such a huge ego, it's hard to see how she can fit through a door. She truly is a monster and having her in charge of this country, especially in these difficult times would be a disaster, IMO.

aurora89
05-09-10, 02:55
Yeah, this acquaintance had some horror stories of her literally physically assaulting someone else working for her. My jaw dropped when I heard some of the tales. I had no reason to doubt this guy anyways, and now that others are backing him up, it just confirms it for me.

Draco
05-09-10, 02:59
Yeah, nobody with a brain really does like her.

aurora89
05-09-10, 03:11
I liked her to start with because, hey! The first woman vice president! And she even has a child with Down's Syndrome! And then I learned more and more about her and slowly and reluctantly began to change my opinion of her. :( Now she makes me shudder.

trlestew
05-09-10, 03:18
I thought everyone knew this :confused:
That woman just isn't right...

Draco
05-09-10, 06:55
People support her the same way they support Obama: for all the wrong reasons.

Alpharaider47
05-09-10, 06:58
People support her the same way they support Obama: for all the wrong reasons.

So very very true :o

Ward Dragon
05-09-10, 07:09
People support her the same way they support Obama: for all the wrong reasons.

Because she gives liberal extremists an aneurysm? :p

aurora89
05-09-10, 15:50
Yeah, I think I support Obama mainly because he's less scary than Palin, and that's probably the wrong reason but I'm not ashamed to say it. :p

Mad Tony
05-09-10, 15:57
Jeez, I'm so sick of hearing about her all the time. People talk about her as if she's some big evil giant when in actual fact I don't even think she's that relevant. What's ironic is that the people who wont stop going on about her are the ones who claim to hate her the most.

CiaKonwerski
05-09-10, 16:00
Yeah, I think I support Obama mainly because he's less scary than Palin, and that's probably the wrong reason but I'm not ashamed to say it. :p

http://i52.************/1zqezxj.jpg
Disagreed. And yes, that is an awful reason. You should know what each candidate stands for, and know what you as a citizen stands for. One major reason why Obama won in my opinion is because he is black. You cannot just say you like one candidate over the other because of the way they look, or because they seem "less scary"-what does that even mean? You need to know what it is that you honestly stand for. Trust me, it is not just you. There are many people who vote or like one candidate over the other for bizarre reasons that do not have anything to do with politics whatsoever.

aurora89
05-09-10, 16:04
http://i52.************/1zqezxj.jpg
Disagreed. And yes, that is an awful reason. You should know what each candidate stands for, and know what you as a citizen stands for.

Are you even old enough to vote?

I know what I stand for, and that's generally not treating people like crap. Obama does a much better job at that than Palin!

I don't agree with him on everything, but God forbid Palin get his job. O_o "Less scary" means " less likely to throw CANS OF FOOD AT THEIR SPOUSE" in my opinion.

Also, I am incredibly liberal so Obama naturally has a lot more beliefs in common with me than Palin. But mainly I just really did not want Palin to win. You act all shocked, but it's a surprisingly common way of figuring out who you want to vote for.

CiaKonwerski
05-09-10, 16:07
Are you even old enough to vote?

I know what I stand for, and that's generally not treating people like crap. Obama does a much better job at that than Palin!

I don't agree with him on everything, but God forbid Palin get his job. O_o "Less scary" means " less likely to throw CANS OF FOOD AT THEIR SPOUSE" in my opinion.

Also, I am incredibly liberal so Obama naturally has a lot more beliefs in common with me than Palin. But mainly I just really did not want Palin to win. You act all shocked, but it's a surprisingly common way of figuring out who you want to vote for.

Tell me you are not being serious.

So, you are basing something off of that a candidate does at home. Politics and people's home life (IMO) should be kept separate from one's final vote.

aurora89
05-09-10, 16:09
Tell me you are not being serious.

I am, but I don't think you are. The woman throws canned goods at her husband. Do you really want that in the white house?

CiaKonwerski
05-09-10, 16:11
I am, but I don't think you are. The woman throws canned goods at her husband. Do you really want that in the white house?

As I said above. So, you are upset with Palin and you think that she is scary because of something that she did at her house, in her own personal life. I seriously believe that politics and the candidates home life should be kept separate. The final vote should not be based on something they did in their personal life. That is just as bad as saying, "She yelled at her kids" SO, I do not think she is fit for the white house. Obama has done hundreds of worse things than throwing can foods at someone since he has been in office, yet it is okay.

But never mind this discussion as it is getting off-topic.

Draco
05-09-10, 16:12
Well if she is that short tempered in situations that don't matter, imagine what she would do if something important ****ed her off.

Do you want that in control of the American Nuclear Arsenal?

Mad Tony
05-09-10, 16:17
I'm not a Palin hater but if I was, her throwing cans at her husband would be the least of my worries about her.

Draco
05-09-10, 16:21
What would you be more worried about?

lara c. fan
05-09-10, 16:23
What would you be more worried about?

Her throwing cans at her advisors.
Kidding.

Mad Tony
05-09-10, 16:24
What would you be more worried about?Her policies probably. After all, I can see why the left don't like her (although that still doesn't warrant them blabbing on about her 24/7).

Draco
05-09-10, 16:27
Her throwing cans at her advisors.
Kidding.

Generals Starkist and Dole? Or maybe Bush's Baked Beans at the National Security Advisor.

lara c. fan
05-09-10, 16:28
Generals Starkist and Dole? Or maybe Bush's Baked Beans at the National Security Advisor.

Anything that comes to hand.

:p

Mad Tony
05-09-10, 16:30
For example, Gordon Brown was a hot head (and a bad one at that). Everyone knew it. However, him being a hot-head was the least of my concerns about him.

EmeraldFields
05-09-10, 18:19
You never know what Sarah Palin's capable of...

http://i53.************/33ynhxk.gif

http://i55.************/vzwm0g.jpg

Alpharaider47
05-09-10, 18:20
You never know what Sarah Palin's capable of...

http://i53.************/33ynhxk.gif

http://i55.************/vzwm0g.jpg

I guess that means we can take Iran, North Korea, and maybe Pakistan off of our maps if she's elected :p

EmeraldFields
05-09-10, 18:29
http://i55.************/4so3tj.gif

Alpharaider47
05-09-10, 18:30
http://i55.************/4so3tj.gif[/IMG]

I can invade Russia from my house!

xXhayleyroxXx
05-09-10, 18:39
I hate her :p This really doesn't surprise me.

Dennis's Mom
05-09-10, 18:42
I learned to dislike Sarah Palin during her gubernatorial run, and I'm always gob-smacked that anyone thinks she has anything America needs right now. She is immature in the extreme.

This article has too many un-cited sources to be really valuable IMO. However, I'm thrilled it exposes the types of people Sarah has working for her. (Russo and Mansour.) They bullied anyone and everyone on the internet and she rewarded them with jobs.

Goose
05-09-10, 18:43
Its a good read just out of interest lol.

But i find it hard to believe the author who writes for left wing papers really had any intention of painting her in a good light like he said. And his reasons for originally likeing her are'nt exactly smart, "im a christian and come from a small town like her". If thats all it takes to get a vote from a political journalist for major newspapers, its no wonder no-one seems to ever like there presidents after election there.

IceColdLaraCroft
05-09-10, 18:50
This is what she'd be like as president:

http://www.palinaspresident.us/


it's interactive so enjoy :)

Ward Dragon
05-09-10, 18:58
After reading the whole article (and playing a lot of Bloodlines the past few days :p) all I got from it is that Sarah Palin is Therese Voerman (and this (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f214/WraithStar/bikini-gun.jpg) must have been Jeanette :p). Most of it is just gossip, rumors, and hearsay. For a lot of the rest, I don't really see the big deal. Some of her social political views make me really uneasy, so I think there are plenty of fair criticisms to be had there which this article didn't focus on, but apparently by all accounts when she was in office she left the social policies to the legislature anyway.

A lot of the article also seems, directly or indirectly, to be based upon the Troopergate scandal despite that Palin was apparently cleared of any ethical wrong doing according to the latest investigation (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/2nd-probe-clears-palin-in-trooper-case/) I found on it. And as for her secretive stance regarding the mainstream media, after all of the horrible disgusting things they said about her children I really don't blame her for reacting that way. I feel like if this is the worst that her enemies can dig up on her then she must not be that bad. But then again they picked stupid things to insult Bush over and totally ignored his real faults, so that's the media for you. I don't know Palin well enough to know what her real faults are.

Oh, and the article also implies that she might possibly announce a presidential campaign on September 11th, which is less than a week from now so that would be interesting to say the least... I think right now her purpose is to rally conservatives to vote in the midterm elections, not to run for office herself. She's the figurehead, not the one pulling the strings. That's not even really a bad thing as long as she picks competent people to delegate to, but she's probably doing a better job at motivating people to get involved in the elections for other candidates than she would be at serving in office herself.

Mona Sax
05-09-10, 19:03
I'm more worried about her lack of knowledge than about her temper. I wouldn't assume that her throwing stuff at her husband means she'd annihilate Russia if she got the chance. This article is a bit shy on context and evidence, anyway.

What we do know from her 2008 campaign, though, is that she knows embarrassingly little about what's going on in the world, does not hesitate to use her power to further her own personal agenda, likes to stir up hatred and violence against her opponents, is deeply antisocial and prefers faith to knowledge.

I can understand that people feel ignored and neglected by a political elite. What is dangerous is the opposition against a perceived 'intellectualism'. When education is considered negative, when people are willing to elect average - if not blatantly incompetent - candidates, then we're in trouble.

Ward Dragon
05-09-10, 19:30
I can understand that people feel ignored and neglected by a political elite. What is dangerous is the opposition against a perceived 'intellectualism'. When education is considered negative, when people are willing to elect average - if not blatantly incompetent - candidates, then we're in trouble.

Just look at the economy and the unemployment rate. We are in trouble. If Obama and the Democrats were actually working together to fix things, no one would be listening to Sarah Palin. But Obama can hardly get anything passed even with a Democratic majority, and the health care plan just raises taxes for four years before it even goes into effect (not to mention a lot of the actual policies hinge on decisions by commissions that haven't been made yet, so it's not even clear what will happen when it does go into effect).

People are really not happy with how things are being run right now, and that's why people like Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement are gathering such momentum. I think the Republicans will retake both houses of Congress in November. I get the impression that Obama just wants to pass things to say he did something, but it was Pelosi and Reid who were really badgering Congressmen into signing bills they weren't allowed to read, or openly bribing them with pork-barrel spending if they voted a certain way. Maybe without Pelosi and Reid driving the policy, something good might actually get done.

Draco
05-09-10, 19:49
Getting rid of Reid is worth my state losing the Senate Majority Leadership.

Mona Sax
05-09-10, 20:27
Just look at the economy and the unemployment rate. We are in trouble. If Obama and the Democrats were actually working together to fix things, no one would be listening to Sarah Palin. But Obama can hardly get anything passed even with a Democratic majority, and the health care plan just raises taxes for four years before it even goes into effect (not to mention a lot of the actual policies hinge on decisions by commissions that haven't been made yet, so it's not even clear what will happen when it does go into effect).

People are really not happy with how things are being run right now, and that's why people like Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement are gathering such momentum. I think the Republicans will retake both houses of Congress in November. I get the impression that Obama just wants to pass things to say he did something, but it was Pelosi and Reid who were really badgering Congressmen into signing bills they weren't allowed to read, or openly bribing them with pork-barrel spending if they voted a certain way. Maybe without Pelosi and Reid driving the policy, something good might actually get done.
Yes, we are in trouble, most countries are. America would be in just as much of it with a Republican majority and president, only it would be even a little less social and humane. It's the entire system that's broken. Nobody will ever get anything done until both Democrats and Republicans can actually leave their greed and hunger for power behind and work together for the common good. Right now it's money and big business running the show, as it always has. [/rant]

Ward Dragon
05-09-10, 20:55
Yes, we are in trouble, most countries are. America would be in just as much of it with a Republican majority and president, only it would be even a little less social and humane. It's the entire system that's broken. Nobody will ever get anything done until both Democrats and Republicans can actually leave their greed and hunger for power behind and work together for the common good. Right now it's money and big business running the show, as it always has. [/rant]

I honestly believe that if the Republicans had a majority in both houses for the past few years, none of the bailout crap would have been passed. Those businesses deserved to go under and bailing them out only made the economy worse in the long run. I found it really weird that the Democrats went along with Bush to help "big business" and then Obama went and continued those policies despite Republican opposition. The stereotypical roles have been reversed :p And what is this national healthcare if not the ultimate incarnation of "big business"? It's a government-run monopoly which is anathema to the free market and everything this country is meant to stand for. Plus I don't really consider it "universal healthcare" if I have to buy it myself anyway under threat of the IRS coming after me if I don't. Lately it really does seem that the Democrats are the "big business" party while the Republicans don't know what the hell they are but are slowly redefining themselves to be individualist and anti-big government.

Draco
05-09-10, 20:59
In other words, things are returning to the original themes of the two parties.

Mona Sax
05-09-10, 21:06
I don't like the bailouts, but I don't like high unemployment numbers, either. I don't know it it's possible to determine just how well the bailouts worked, and I'm appalled at how little those responsible for the financial crisis had to pay in return (i.e., nothing).

Universal healthcare means big government, agreed. But: It also means that people have access to healthcare that wouldn't otherwise, which makes it worth it. An enlightened and civilized nation simply cannot afford to not care for those in need. The law of the jungle just isn't an option.

Individualism is an admirable goal, but it does have certain limits. The integrity of nature, for example, solidarity with the weaker links of society, or human rights. Republicans tend to ignore those limits. Freedom isn't much use when it's only for those who can afford it.

Ward Dragon
05-09-10, 21:06
In other words, things are returning to the original themes of the two parties.

Yeah, pretty much. The more things change, the more they stay the same :p

I don't like the bailouts, but I don't like high unemployment numbers, either. I don't know it it's possible to determine just how well the bailouts worked, and I'm appalled at how little those responsible for the financial crisis had to pay in return (i.e., nothing).

The bailouts haven't helped the unemployment rate at all. If anything they've made it worse by encouraging the crap that got those businesses to the brink of bankruptcy in the first place. Investors are afraid to invest when they know that Obama can nullify their right to be repaid and declare that the company now belongs to the union and/or the government. That cripples growth and expansion of businesses. Meanwhile the businesses who have been doing it the right way suddenly find themselves at a major disadvantage because they have to compete against companies that are backed by the government (and tons of our tax dollars) so they have to lay people off to try to make ends meet.

And of course as the unemployment rate increases it becomes disproportionately more difficult for an unemployed person to find a job because businesses have such a flood of applicants that they can automatically rule out anyone without vast amounts of experience and an advanced degree. Can't really blame the businesses for trying to find the best people for their jobs, but it really sucks for someone fresh out of college trying to get an entry level position somewhere.

Universal healthcare means big government, agreed. But: It also means that people have access to healthcare they wouldn't otherwise, which makes it worth it. An enlightened and civilized nation simply cannot afford to not care for those in need. The law of the jungle just isn't an option.

I agree with the principle idea, but I really don't see how the monstrosity of a bill that got passed will do anything to accomplish the goal of helping people who need it. It just seems like it will give the government more power over people without giving anything in return, much less adhere to the noble ideals that it was supposed to uphold in the first place. How exactly will this bill increase coverage? So far the only answer I've found is that people will be fined or thrown in jail for tax evasion if they do not purchase health insurance themselves. So what are the tax increases for? To increase the size of the IRS? We really don't need that... XD I'm joking a bit, but it really does seem that the vast majority of the bill adds more bureaucracy to the healthcare system without any real benefit to anybody except the government itself. I would have rather seen improvements made to Medicaid to catch anybody who is falling through the cracks of the current program.

Individualism is an admirable goal, but it does have certain limits. The integrity of nature, for example, solidarity with the weaker links of society, or human rights. Republicans tend to ignore those limits. Freedom isn't much use when it's only for those who can afford it.

And personal rights don't mean anything if the government can steal everything you own for whatever it deems a worthy cause, whether that's through high income taxes, extra sales taxes on things it doesn't like such as soda, taking private property through eminent domain, etc. There has to be some guarantee of civil liberties, otherwise the Bill of Rights is meaningless.

Mona Sax
05-09-10, 21:34
Only a thought here because I gotta go (I'll try to expand and cover more of your arguments as soon as possible): The state is responsible for running its infrastructure, which costs a certain amount of money. If you don't tax one thing, you're going to have to tax another in order to cover your expenses. So, it doesn't really matter if you tax income, sales or something else, as long as the balance is fair. This way, taxes can act as guidelines in lieu of laws, which are always more incisive. Of course, unnecessary expenses should be avoided and taxes kept as low as possible, no argument there. It can hardly be called 'stealing' when the money is used for the common good. What that is specifically has to be decided by you via votes and elections. Ultimately, it's your choice as a citizen.

Privatization of infrastructure is hardly ever an option. Experience has shown that costs usually increase while the level of service decreases, regardless of the business area (railways, power, mail, etc.).

Ward Dragon
05-09-10, 22:08
I'm very bored and I'm probably replying in too much depth XD Anyhow...

So, it doesn't really matter if you tax income, sales or something else, as long as the balance is fair.

It does matter because taxing different things will have different effects on the economy. Taxing income means people have less to spend overall, whereas sales taxes on various items will affect what people buy and where they buy it (for example, if they live near the border to a state with lower sales tax, they may do all of their shopping in the neighboring state). Politicians need to take that into account rather than relying on pure ideology (I've seen some politicians admit point blank that they would still favor "taxing the rich" even if it could be definitively proven to lower the government's tax revenue overall). Actual economists need to determine economic policy, not politicians :p

Of course, unnecessary expenses should be avoided and taxes kept as low as possible, no argument there.

Definitely :tmb:

It can hardly be called 'stealing' when the money is used for the common good. What that is specifically has to be decided by you via votes and elections. Ultimately, it's your choice as a citizen.

We never got to vote on Supreme Court justices, yet they are making decisions such as Kelo v. City of New London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) which gives the government the right to use eminent domain to take private property from one person and give it to another as long as they claim that doing so will somehow help the economy overall. (Also note which justices favored this gross violation of civil liberties and which opposed it :whi:) At least individual states are passing laws to greatly limit eminent domain, but really the limitations are already in the Bill of Rights and if that can get ignored by the Supreme Court so easily, that is very worrisome overall.

Privatization of infrastructure is hardly ever an option. Experience has shown that costs usually increase while the level of service decreases, regardless of the business area (railways, power, mail, etc.).

This I agree with (despite grimacing at seeing mention of railways in discussions of eminent domain considering their horrible behavior killing people if they didn't accept extremely unfavorable sales terms for their property), but I don't consider health care to be part of the basic infrastructure that the government has to run by necessity. Nor are schools for that matter. It seems that the worse the public school system gets, the more control the government tries to take and that makes it spiral down even faster. For example I don't think many people in the education field would say that No Child Left Behind has actually improved anything (rather made it worse in a lot of cases).

I think that basic infrastructure should be defined as narrowly as possible and the rest should be handled privately. For example I really doubt that most parents would willingly choose to send their children to a failing school if they could afford to send the child elsewhere, so it's really not fair that they are forced to pay school taxes instead of using that money to send their children somewhere else. It's easy for all of the politicians to be against school vouchers when their own children are enrolled in fancy private academies, but what about the regular people that they are supposed to be representing?

I'm definitely not against programs to help less fortunate people. I just think that the government is currently going about it completely the wrong way and could be helping a lot more people if they were concerned with what works in the real world, not what things should be like in an ideal world.

Alpharaider47
05-09-10, 22:13
I like the idea of universal health care, but I'm not sure the gov went about it the right way at the right time. I also don't like the idea that if I don't have Health Care for w/e reason I'll have to pay a fine... I don't choose to be alive, which always ****ed me off when it was compared to car insurance and such.

Dennis's Mom
05-09-10, 22:21
A lot of the article also seems, directly or indirectly, to be based upon the Troopergate scandal despite that Palin was apparently cleared of any ethical wrong doing according to the latest investigation (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/2nd-probe-clears-palin-in-trooper-case/) I found on it.

That would be the "investigation" that was conducted by people Palin appointed and could fire. The independent investigation commissioned by the legislature said that the did. Read the REAL report. (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf)

Conflict of Interest is a bad thing for a reason. This woman had her husband run roughshod over anyone who would listen about complaints that had already been handled according to policy. I believe it's one of the reason she moved her entire staff to Yahoo email--just to avoid open records. Reading Ivy Fry's panicky emails about just how they could keep all correspondence secret from the state (http://www.box.net/shared/y6x38dnhmp#/shared/y6x38dnhmp/2/46292278/462744816/1) makes me wonder what on earth all of Sarah's staff could be discussing that needed to be so highly confidential from the residents of Alaska?

She's an embarrassment. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y97/LisaB1138/smilies/28.gif

Ward Dragon
05-09-10, 23:02
That would be the "investigation" that was conducted by people Palin appointed and could fire. The independent investigation commissioned by the legislature said that the did. Read the REAL report. (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf)

Conflict of Interest is a bad thing for a reason. This woman had her husband run roughshod over anyone who would listen about complaints that had already been handled according to policy. I believe it's one of the reason she moved her entire staff to Yahoo email--just to avoid open records.

I'm reading through that report right now but it's huge so it'll take awhile XD So far it looks like mainly her husband was pursuing the personal interests as a private citizen. Probably not the best judgment call, but so far I don't see anything that says she was knowingly abusing her position (which appears to be the requirement for her actions to break the ethics rules). Maybe I just haven't gotten to it yet, so we'll see. But from what I've read so far, Monegan told her explicitly to have Todd contact him about Wooten in order to avoid breaking any rules so that's what she did.

Reading Ivy Fry's panicky emails about just how they could keep all correspondence secret from the state (http://www.box.net/shared/y6x38dnhmp#/shared/y6x38dnhmp/2/46292278/462744816/1) makes me wonder what on earth all of Sarah's staff could be discussing that needed to be so highly confidential from the residents of Alaska?

Where do you see panic in that? :confused: I read the whole e-mail exchange and all I saw was someone trying to figure out if private personal e-mails were really private. I can think of some personal e-mails I've sent and received which I wouldn't want to come up in court just because of which device I viewed them on. Nothing illegal or unethical, just private. That's why I don't really see anything nefarious in someone trying to get a clear grasp of the rules before they decide whether to purchase their own Blackberry for personal use or whether they are allowed to use the same Blackberry for work as well without suffering any loss of privacy for the personal correspondence.

Besides, didn't Palin's e-mail get hacked by 4chan and they didn't find anything sinister? That proves to me that a) she wasn't trying to hide anything illegal and b) she's really stupid for picking such an insecure password (which probably would have happened even with the official e-mail account unless the state assigns secure passwords automatically).




Edit: Okay, I've read more of the report now. It basically sounds to me like she should have known better but probably didn't when it comes to letting her husband pursue the issue so much. I could buy that she really thought it was okay for Todd to keep asking about it since Monegan told her, "I need you to keep an arm's length at this -- on this issue. And if you have further complaints on him, I can deal with Todd on it." (p. 58) So I think it's plausible that she lacked good judgment and thought it was alright to let Todd keep filing complaints.

As for the actual firing of Monegan, the report says that was well within her power and it's not really an ethics violation (or at least that's how I interpret "proper and lawful"). Exact quote on page 69 -- "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

Anyhow, she doesn't really need good judgment of separating business and personal affairs to be a spokesperson and campaign rally person, so I expect she'll stay where she is right now and keep making tons of money off of it :p

IceColdLaraCroft
06-09-10, 02:02
Maverick!

Ward Dragon
06-09-10, 02:47
Maverick!

Was that in response to me or to the original post? :p

I supported Palin during the 2008 election, but honestly I think 10% of that was due to her charisma and 90% due to how vicious and personal the attacks against her were (particularly the totally vile things that people said about her children). Whenever I see someone getting ganged up on and attacked like that, it's my natural instinct to want to join their side and defend against the attacks.

But now she's resigned as governor and chosen to write a book and give speeches, so I think that's what she should keep doing rather than running for office again. Besides, if she's really in it for what she thinks is best for the country, I think she's much more effective advancing her goals where she is right now. She can draw national attention to any issue she thinks is important and instantly have people discussing it, and she can influence elections all across the country and support people she thinks will do a good job. If she ran herself, she'd have to focus on her own campaign and she probably wouldn't be as influential as she is right now, so it's probably better that she remains a political commentator instead of running for office.

CiaKonwerski
06-09-10, 02:56
Was that in response to me or to the original post? :p

I supported Palin during the 2008 election, but honestly I think 10% of that was due to her charisma and 90% due to how vicious and personal the attacks against her were (particularly the totally vile things that people said about her children). Whenever I see someone getting ganged up on and attacked like that, it's my natural instinct to want to join their side and defend against the attacks.

But now she's resigned as governor and chosen to write a book and give speeches, so I think that's what she should keep doing rather than running for office again. Besides, if she's really in it for what she thinks is best for the country, I think she's much more effective advancing her goals where she is right now. She can draw national attention to any issue she thinks is important and instantly have people discussing it, and she can influence elections all across the country and support people she thinks will do a good job. If she ran herself, she'd have to focus on her own campaign and she probably wouldn't be as influential as she is right now, so it's probably better that she remains a political commentator instead of running for office.

I do agree with everything that you said here Ward Dragon. I do hope that she will run however and will be able to focus on her own campaign if she does.

aurora89
06-09-10, 03:17
http://i52.************/1zqezxj.jpg
Disagreed. And yes, that is an awful reason. You should know what each candidate stands for, and know what you as a citizen stands for. One major reason why Obama won in my opinion is because he is black. You cannot just say you like one candidate over the other because of the way they look, or because they seem "less scary"-what does that even mean? You need to know what it is that you honestly stand for. Trust me, it is not just you. There are many people who vote or like one candidate over the other for bizarre reasons that do not have anything to do with politics whatsoever.

...

I do agree with everything that you said here Ward Dragon. I do hope that she will run however and will be able to focus on her own campaign if she does.

So, supporting someone because they seem like the lesser of two evils is WRONG AND UNPATRIOTIC and means you stand for nothing, but supporting someone because everyone else hates them is totally cool to you? What is your problem? :vlol:

Anyways, I'm 99% sure you can't even vote (or, if you can now, you couldn't in 2008), so I'll give you bit more time to experience the world before crushing your hypocritical naivete. :p

Ward Dragon
06-09-10, 03:26
Let's not get personal now :) I was quite enjoying having a political debate without anyone using any personal attacks for once :p That goes for both posts (didn't notice the first until it just got quoted right now). No need to make assumptions about each other and then attack based upon those assumptions. Instead focus on discussing the ideas themselves without insults :)

Draco
06-09-10, 04:38
The title of the thread really should have been:

The Devil Wears Prada

aurora89
06-09-10, 04:43
The title of the thread really should have been:

The Devil Wears Prada

Natla wears Prada! :yik:

Ward Dragon
06-09-10, 04:51
The title of the thread really should have been:

The Devil Wears Prada

I assumed that's what the title was alluding to :p I think I actually saw that movie once at my friend's house. Not something I'd ordinarily seek out to watch on my own, but it was pretty good.

Dennis's Mom
06-09-10, 16:27
Where do you see panic in that? :confused: I read the whole e-mail exchange and all I saw was someone trying to figure out if private personal e-mails were really private. I can think of some personal e-mails I've sent and received which I wouldn't want to come up in court just because of which device I viewed them on. Nothing illegal or unethical, just private. That's why I don't really see anything nefarious in someone trying to get a clear grasp of the rules before they decide whether to purchase their own Blackberry for personal use or whether they are allowed to use the same Blackberry for work as well without suffering any loss of privacy for the personal correspondence.

Besides, didn't Palin's e-mail get hacked by 4chan and they didn't find anything sinister? That proves to me that a) she wasn't trying to hide anything illegal and b) she's really stupid for picking such an insecure password (which probably would have happened even with the official e-mail account unless the state assigns secure passwords automatically).




Edit: Okay, I've read more of the report now. It basically sounds to me like she should have known better but probably didn't when it comes to letting her husband pursue the issue so much. I could buy that she really thought it was okay for Todd to keep asking about it since Monegan told her, "I need you to keep an arm's length at this -- on this issue. And if you have further complaints on him, I can deal with Todd on it." (p. 58) So I think it's plausible that she lacked good judgment and thought it was alright to let Todd keep filing complaints.

As for the actual firing of Monegan, the report says that was well within her power and it's not really an ethics violation (or at least that's how I interpret "proper and lawful"). Exact quote on page 69 -- "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

It's certainly true she needed no excuse to fire Monegan, however, there's no question it was exceeding bad judgment to let Todd pressure state employees. There's no question she knew he was doing it. The woman installed him in the governor's office with his own phone line. Conflict of interest is a bad thing for a reason. Anyone with a smattering of ethics knows you don't touch family matters with a 10 foot pole in your work life. The moment she was elected governor, she should have known Wooten was off-limits.

It's very easy to keep personal emails personal. Anyone who's ever had a job knows how to do that. They were paranoid because they were conducting state business through personal emails, i.e., Yahoo. There's no reason for every single employee to have a Yahoo account for "personal reasons." Sorry, that's BS. If you looked through those emails, you would see lots of state business being conducted, not personal business. This was an open records dodge. Funny how no previous administration was so worried about their "personal" emails they felt the need to move them to non-secure public web sites.

Ward Dragon
06-09-10, 21:27
It's certainly true she needed no excuse to fire Monegan, however, there's no question it was exceeding bad judgment to let Todd pressure state employees. There's no question she knew he was doing it. The woman installed him in the governor's office with his own phone line. Conflict of interest is a bad thing for a reason. Anyone with a smattering of ethics knows you don't touch family matters with a 10 foot pole in your work life. The moment she was elected governor, she should have known Wooten was off-limits.

The report pretty much established she had bad judgment overall (for example trying to get Wooten fired before the sister's divorce was settled resulted in her sister getting a less favorable divorce settlement than she was asking for) so I could believe that she didn't know what she was doing broke the ethics rules. Therefore it wasn't an ethics violation if I read the first part of the report correctly. The author seemed to show how she lacked judgment, and then proceeded to conclude that she must have known it was against the rules because that's what a logical person would realize (despite that he just showed she's not logical). So it doesn't seem to me that she broke any rules, but her bad judgment would undoubtedly be used against her in any future elections.

It's very easy to keep personal emails personal. Anyone who's ever had a job knows how to do that.

I've never had a Blackberry. I honestly have no idea how those things work and I wouldn't check any personal stuff on one that was owned by the government because I'd figure they were reading everything anyway XD Is there really a way to check personal stuff on work property without them seeing it? :confused:

They were paranoid because they were conducting state business through personal emails, i.e., Yahoo. There's no reason for every single employee to have a Yahoo account for "personal reasons." Sorry, that's BS. If you looked through those emails, you would see lots of state business being conducted, not personal business. This was an open records dodge. Funny how no previous administration was so worried about their "personal" emails they felt the need to move them to non-secure public web sites.

Which e-mails am I supposed to look through? I read the entire exchange you posted before but it didn't appear to be anything other than asking whether legally all the contents of a work Blackberry could be investigated in court even if it contained personal correspondence or if it would just be the work-related stuff that got used in court. The woman basically wanted to know whether it was okay to use her work Blackberry to check personal e-mail or if she should just buy her own Blackberry and keep the personal stuff completely separate from the work Blackberry.