September 22, 2008

Sometimes the best defense is .... pathetic

I'm still not sure if my eyes are deceiving me, but I don't think so.

Palin/McCain's rapid response lawyer squad which parachuted into Alaska recently to try to shut down the Troopergate scandal investigation are now arguing that Palin didn't fire Alaska's top cop for refusing to illegally fire her former brother-in-law. No, they now say, he was fired for planning to go to D.C. to lobby for ... well, here's the quote. You tell me if it's as insane as it sounds.

Fighting back against allegations she may have fired her then-Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, for refusing to go along with a personal vendetta, Palin on Monday argued in a legal filing that she fired Monegan because he had a "rogue mentality" and was bucking her administration's directives.

"The last straw," her lawyer argued, came when he planned a trip to Washington, D.C., to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. The project, expected to cost from $10 million to $20 million a year for five years, would have been the first of its kind in Alaska, which leads the nation in reported forcible rape.

The McCain-Palin campaign echoed the charge in a press release it distributed Monday, concurrent with Palin's legal filing. "Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.," the release stated.

But the governor's staff authorized the trip, according to an internal travel document from the Department of Public Safety, released Friday in response to an open records request.


Sooooo, the guy's firing offence was to try to find funds to combat rape and sexual assault in his state which has the highest rates of rape per capita in the entire United States? And Palin found this so objectionable that she canned a guy with an exemplary record over decades in law enforcement for it? (Though evidence states that her office OKed it.)

THAT'S the kind of "reformer" she was up there?

The more that is revealed, the more she seems like a Cheney clone, vindictive, secretive, and surrounding herself with unqualified cronies.

And did I mention that Sarah Palin is a real feminist? A great beacon of hope to Republican women everywhere? Well, it's true.

According to her hometown newspaper, while "The Drilla from Wassila" was mayor, Wasilla charged traumatized rape victims for the cost of their own rape exams, for God's sake! (and was upset by a bill that forced them to do so.)

"You got raped!"
"Yes"
"Oh my God! Are you pressing charges? Did you report it to the police?"
"No"
"Why on earth not!!??"
"They said I had to pay for the exam to collect evidence and I can't afford it."
"Well, that's reasonable. It would be too big a burden on taxpayers. Besides, anyone that gets raped was probably asking for it anyway and isn't a good Christian."

Is this just another example of "normal" Republican values and philosophy? Or is Palin and her ilk just more despicable nut-case conservative ideologues using their phony Christianity as a shield to justify their decidedly un-Christian ways?

Yet Palin is quite the feminist. The McCain campaign pushed that idea hard. And we all know they wouldn't lie.

She's the woman who can simultaneously raise 5 kids including a handicapped infant while travelling non-stop and campaigning 18 hours a day, field dress a moose, and have it on the table by 6, and still look good enough to unleash frenzied masturbation among pasty conservatives everywhere.

Yep, the great feminist Sarah who feels that rape victims should pull themselves up by their bootstraps (if they survived and weren't beaten or stabbed too badly) and pay the Wassilla PD out their own pockets to have evidence collected from the violent act committed against them.

The Republican's idea of feminism is a little... different, I guess.

But I'm sure those Hillary voters will still flock to McCain. After all, Palin is a woman.

That's what the McCain campaign told us, and we all know they wouldn't lie.

6 Comments:

At 9/22/2008 6:09 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Ah yes, the state trooper who used a taser on his 11 year old son and who threatened Sarah Palin's parents.
I would be more concerned if she DIDN'T fire his ass!
Why is that so had for liberals to get? And if the trooper's superior didn't fire him, then oh well, his ass should have been fired too.

How many times have we worked in organizations where the boss doesn't fire those who need to be fired, or worse yet, takes bad advice from them?

There is such a thing as the "buck stops here".
All the rest of this stuff about rape kits and stuff is just trying to dredge up bullshit and scare tactics. And do you know what? It's falling on deaf ears: It remind me of the time that Bush 41 nailed Dukakis for Boston Harbor being polluted and Dems went into some defense of it but nobody paid attention by then.

What is pathetic is what great lengths you will go to to keep a woman OUT of the White House....unless she is a LIBERAL woman of course. (then more power to her). Gee, how "progressive"

 
At 9/22/2008 8:57 PM, Blogger Wes said...

Palin is Bush in a dress. She is absurdly confident and righteous about decisions that she has little or no knowledge of. She values loyalty and secrecy over competence. She takes any opportunity to assert executive privilege when none exists in either law or tradition. And now she has the same Bush handlers that trashed McCain in 2000 advising her politically. I will take great pleasure in watching her and her ilk banished back to the 24 hours of darkness from which she slinked in November.

 
At 9/23/2008 1:43 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Nico, I just read the first sentences of your comment and I need to hold up the "time out" sign already.

The fact is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE HELL THIS GUY DID!!

I don't care if he branded his kids with a hot iron.

There are ways of doing things, which as an authoritarian Republican, you certainly must appreciate.

First of all, it's not Palin's responsibility to fire this guy.

Second of all, she asked the head of the state police to fire the guy and surely let HIM know every sordid detail of what she thinks happened. (and as far as I know, nothings been proven and the trooper hasn't confessed. Why you assume what you're told is fact I don't know.)

So now the chief of police has the responsibility to investigate and look into these charges and decide if they disqualify him from performing his duties as a police officer or warrent firing.

This he did. He found that whatever Palin was accusing him of, the guy was a good cop, and as such, the chief had NO REASON TO FIRE HIM.

What part of that don't you get Nico?

Then Palin proceeded to abuse the power of her office and fired the CHIEF because he wouldn't fire the cop for no good reason.

This you apparently have no problem with. That's a shame.

I'll tell you one thing and I know it's true. If you were involved in a messy relationship, and your wife or girlfriend or whatever went around telling fantastic tales about what a monster you were, and their brother happened to be, say, a state senator, and the state senator then tried to demand that your superior FIRE YOUR ASS from your job over unproven allegations that have nothing to do with your job whatsoever, YOU'D BE A LITTLE PISSED.

This isn't about whether the trooper was an asshole.

This is about whether Palin ABUSED HER OFFICE to improperly get someone fired over a personal vendetta.

Period.

If you can't grasp that. (and I choose to think you can... easily), then you're a lost cause.

 
At 9/23/2008 1:49 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Wes,

It probably surprises no one that I agree completely.

And though it's not related to the guy who would be president on that ticket (shudder), did you read about the e-mails that Palin was forced to cough up?

First she claims executive priviledge and withholds all but a fraction of those requested. But the list of messages she didn't provide did show the headings of the e-mails.

In claiming executive priviledge, she said the e-mails she wouldn't turn over concerned state business and discussions about measures that were being considered, which is the standard for withholding things.

But on most of the e-mails she refused to provide, she'd CCed the "First Dude" Todd, a private citizen.

So how can she claim "executive privilege", arguing that they can't be shared with the public, when she freaking copied them to a private citizen who happens to be her husband?

I think it's all going to cave in on her eventually.

It was cold in Alaska already, but since the Mccain goons arrived, a deep freeze has descended over any evidence of Palin's political career.

 
At 9/23/2008 7:07 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

You're right, I can't grasp how someone who used a Taser on his 11-year old son is any "good".

I thought that not even YOU could spin that one, but you did. Wow.

I would be more concerned if Palin didn't want this guy fired!! Kudos to her for firing the bureaucrat who didn't fire this man who was out-of-control and who needed to turn in his badge. It goes to show that Sarah Palin has more balls than most of our elected male leaders.

 
At 9/25/2008 2:24 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Listen Nico.
Can you read?

Do you not understand the concept of improper use of authority?

Do you not comprehend that there are courts and laws to deal with whatever you think this guy did and that it is NOT Palin's job to try to insist someone fire him and then fire the guy for refusing to break the law and do as she ordered??

You're freaking nuts.

Apparently you think that we're now ruled by kings and queens and dukes and earls or something, that whenever they don't like someone, they can simply say, "OFF with their head!" and bingo, it's done??

You have to fire someone for CAUSE Nico. And the Police chief had no cause to fire him!

What? He's supposed to just go on Palin's word? That's insane!

I know you're not as dumb as you pretend to be in defending your Republican action heroes and heroins, but please.

Spare me the stupidity.

Elected officials do not have the authority to fire people who are not serving under them simply because they don't like them. That's nuts!

If the Palin's charges have any truth to them, and who knows if they do, then why the hell haven't they pressed charges against him?

Ever ask yourself that logical question?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home