Hold me accountable?

[The_Lillard_King]

The investigation risks casting a shadow on Palin's reputation, central to her appeal in the campaign, that she is a clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests — not a governor who tried to use her authority behind the scenes to settle a personal score.

Palin has defended her behavior and said she welcomed the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she said.

. . . .

Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.

AG Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.

"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/palin_troopergate


It will be hard to hold Palin accountable if she is instructing the AG she appointed to tell state employees to ignore subpoenas. And who can blame the AG for following marching oreders, he doesn't want to get fired.

 

[ucatchtrout]

she has gone "cheney" on them.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

She is losing her luster fast.

Although history shows that the VP is just not a factor when it comes to voting for a president. I was wondering if Palin was going to buck that trend . . . I don't think so.

20 years from now, Palin is going to be the answer on a trivial pursuit card. . . I'm sorry Xericx brings it out of me.

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

????

Well, the thing is, there's not enough time to cover this story so its not an appropriate red herring. Have you seen the guy that got fired? dude looks like a total herb.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

????

Well, the thing is, there's not enough time to cover this story so its not an appropriate red herring. Have you seen the guy that got fired? dude looks like a total herb.

pot head?

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

pot head?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=herb

Insult synonomous with loser but can have multiple negative connotations. Pronounced "HURB" with no silent 'h.'The term was popularized in upstate New York and spread from there.

The word herb has nothing to do with marijuana.

Guy 1: Yo, I saw Melvin in the bathroom crying because he got a 93 on the math test!

Guy 2: Word? That kid is a total HERB!

 

[AgentDrazenPetrovic]

 

[maxiep]

I really have no problem with people being fired and don't really believe you need a reason. I couldn't care less that this guy lost his job. I'm no Palin supporter, but she has every right to fire whomever she pleases.

 

[ucatchtrout]

I really have no problem with people being fired and don't really believe you need a reason. I couldn't care less that this guy lost his job. I'm no Palin supporter, but she has every right to fire whomever she pleases.

Question is. Was it appropriate for her to do these firings? Or was it retribution for being on the wrong side of a family squabble?

At issue is whether Palin abused her power by pressing the commissioner to remove her former brother-in-law as an Alaska state trooper, then firing the commissioner when he didn't....................

Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in July.

Weeks later, it emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten, who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her ex-brother-in-law.

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/palin_troopergate

Sounds more like a pissing match amongst family and abuse of power rather than someone merely exercising the heavy hand of executive power.

 

[maxiep]

Question is. Was it appropriate for her to do these firings? Or was it retribution for being on the wrong side of a family squabble?


http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/palin_troopergate

Sounds more like a pissing match amongst family and abuse of power rather than someone merely exercising the heavy hand of executive power.

To me, the reasons don't matter. If I'm going to be an effective Chief Executive, I need to have the latitude to hire and fire as I see fit.

 

[Denny Crane]

Your comments on this post:

http://sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122986

 

[maxiep]

Your comments on this post:

http://sportstwo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122986

Interesting parallel, and a story I had forgotten. As I recall, the firing of the travel office was more to give Hillary something to do than Bill trying to fill it up with cronies. After all, he had to keep her far from the Oval if he was to conduct his bidness (if you know what I'm saying).

I really do believe that line of "serving at the pleasure of..." marks the beginning and end of the story for Gov. Palin.

 

[barfo]

I really do believe that line of "serving at the pleasure of..." marks the beginning and end of the story for Gov. Palin.

I was thinking that too - that it would end up being nothing, or a very mild rebuke for "the appearance of impropriety". But their decision to try to fight the investigation instead of letting it proceed gives the impression that maybe there is something more to it. It doesn't strike me as a smart political move.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I was thinking that too - that it would end up being nothing, or a very mild rebuke for "the appearance of impropriety". But their decision to try to fight the investigation instead of letting it proceed gives the impression that maybe there is something more to it. It doesn't strike me as a smart political move.

barfo

It seemed to be that her initial strategy was to open the kimono, so to speak. However, the McCain campaign holds a different view. Their horizon is seven weeks, not two years. My guess is their view is that this story needs to be squelched rather than be ridden out.

 

[barfo]

It seemed to be that her initial strategy was to open the kimono, so to speak. However, the McCain campaign holds a different view. Their horizon is seven weeks, not two years. My guess is their view is that this story needs to be squelched rather than be ridden out.

It doesn't seem like a lawsuit will squelch it. Seems like it will keep it in the news right up to election day.

But maybe that's a bad assumption on my part. Maybe they actually think the judge will agree with them tomorrow and that will be the end of it.

barfo

 

[The_Lillard_King]

To me, the reasons don't matter. If I'm going to be an effective Chief Executive, I need to have the latitude to hire and fire as I see fit.

So it's OK to fire someone because they are openingly gay?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Palin trying to squash the investigation is contrary to the image she is trying to sell (going into congress and cleaning it all up.)

Also, there is this issue with tax returns which she won't release. She was getting a stipend (or something like that) to work out of her house, about 12K. One wonders if she declared that money on her tax returns.

If you are going to talk the talk about cleaning up congress, then walk the walk and allow the investigation to continue and disclose your tax returns as the other canidates have.

 

[Dumpy]

I have a problem with instructing state employees not to cooperate with the investigation and to ignore the sub poenas. We'll see what happens when the state employees are threatened with incarceration.

 

[maxiep]

So it's OK to fire someone because they are openingly gay?

If that's stated rationale, then clearly not. That violates the EDA. However, it's awfully easy to fire someone for almost any other reason. In fact, I don't even think a reason is required.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If that's stated rationale, then clearly not. That violates the EDA. However, it's awfully easy to fire someone for almost any other reason. In fact, I don't even think a reason is required.

My only point is reasons matter. Especially being a top government emloyee. If poeple didn't pay attention to the reasons a governor fires someone, well that could easily lead to someone abusing their power.

You know, it's like questioning why the mods decided to move threads . . . you should be allowed to question why and not just accept it and say the reasons they do it doesn't matter.

 

[maxiep]

My only point is reasons matter. Especially being a top government emloyee. If poeple didn't pay attention to the reasons a governor fires someone, well that could easily lead to someone abusing their power.

But I don't view firing someone as an abuse of power. A chief executive needs to be able to put in people they trust to execute their vision. I for one believe this guy was canned because he didn't fire the trooper Gov. Palin wanted him to. That doesn't bother me a whit. That guy is represented by a union, and if there were no grounds to fire him, he'd get a nice settlement. However, this dirtbag was promoted. That was basically this guy saying to Gov. Palin "Take that". That kind of insuboordination deserves a good firing.

You know, it's like questioning why the mods decided to move threads . . . you should be allowed to question why and not just accept it and say the reasons they do it doesn't matter.

LOL! Of course, those folks weren't the boss of me, no matter how much they thought they were.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

But I don't view firing someone as an abuse of power. A chief executive needs to be able to put in people they trust to execute their vision. I for one believe this guy was canned because he didn't fire the trooper Gov. Palin wanted him to. That doesn't bother me a whit. That guy is represented by a union, and if there were no grounds to fire him, he'd get a nice settlement. However, this dirtbag was promoted. That was basically this guy saying to Gov. Palin "Take that". That kind of insuboordination deserves a good firing.



LOL! Of course, those folks weren't the boss of me, no matter how much they thought they were.

Well we see things differently (can you believe it?). But on this one I think the majority is with me, you got to hold government officials accountable for their actions and that includes wrongful termination of employment.

Palin is allowed to fire someone if she feels the employee does not fit with her vision, but she can't fire an employee because he refused to fire someone based on an divorce. If that is the case, Palin abuse her power as governor to (1) try to get her brother-in-law fired (2) firing someone for not firing brother-in-law. Basically ugly politics from a woman who chants about cleaning up congress.

 

[barfo]

I for one believe this guy was canned because he didn't fire the trooper Gov. Palin wanted him to. That doesn't bother me a whit. That guy is represented by a union, and if there were no grounds to fire him, he'd get a nice settlement.

So, you are saying that he should have fired the trooper even though he knew that he did not have grounds to do so, and that the union would sue, and win a big settlement for the trooper?

Would that really be a wise use of tax dollars?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

So, you are saying that he should have fired the trooper even though he knew that he did not have grounds to do so, and that the union would sue, and win a big settlement for the trooper?

Would that really be a wise use of tax dollars?

barfo

From what I've read, this trooper didn't deserve to keep his job, much less be promoted. That was my point.

 

[barfo]

From what I've read, this trooper didn't deserve to keep his job, much less be promoted. That was my point.

Maybe he didn't "deserve" it, but he'd already been punished for the infractions that the Palins ratted him out on, and by the union contract, they weren't able to punish him again for the same infraction. So firing him would indeed have resulted in a lawsuit and the state paying damages.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Maybe he didn't "deserve" it, but he'd already been punished for the infractions that the Palins ratted him out on, and by the union contract, they weren't able to punish him again for the same infraction. So firing him would indeed have resulted in a lawsuit and the state paying damages.

barfo

Must...resist...union...rant.

 

[barfo]

Must...resist...union...rant.

Yes, because that would be missing the point here. Union rules are what they are, and the governor of the state should have been able to comprehend them. Demanding that Monegan breach the union contract, and then firing him for not doing so, is not kosher.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Yes, because that would be missing the point here. Union rules are what they are, and the governor of the state should have been able to comprehend them. Demanding that Monegan breach the union contract, and then firing him for not doing so, is not kosher.

barfo

I guess you didn't see the flag of Israel in Gov. Palin's office.

Actually, I think the real waste of time is pursuing this silly issue. The guy got canned. It's not a big deal to me, although others feel differently.