Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Talking like a pirate
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
Palin staff won’t comply with subpoenas
Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin won’t comply with subpoenas issued by state lawmakers investigating the firing of Alaska’s former public safety commissioner because Palin “has declined to participate” in the probe, her attorney general says. The chairman of the bipartisan panel behind the probe said the attorney general is breaking a week-old agreement
Yes indeed, friends, dramatic proof that Sarah Palin will be Ready On Day One. It took months for Dick Cheney to start ignoring subpoenas.
The legislature, of course, has the full right to investigate the executive branch. That’s part of the checks and balances that are the foundation of American democracy. Ignoring a subpoena is denying the basis of the rule of law; all by itself it is grounds for impeachment.
Over at McClatchy, there’s a commenter from Anchorage. Here’s what the poster has to say in response to the story Palin fires back in ‘troopergate,’ calls official insubordinate
Submitted by DobermanTracker on September 16, 2008 - 8:42pm.
I live in Anchorage and have observed Trooper-Gate from prior to it’s actual beginning. What follows is a chronology of what Palin’s has stated are the reason(s) for Monegan’s firing. Only a textbook narcassist can lie like this in the face of all prior recorded (newsprint and TV news video) contradictory statements from her own mouth.
Walt Monegan is a standup guy—the kind of law enfocement officer that cares for people and actively promotes programs and funding to help end rape and violence against women in Alaska, which has the highest incidence in both areas over all other states—-his subordinates loved him and respected him.
All of the following statements are supported by Anchorage Daily News articles and TV news videos that reported these facts as they occurred. http://www.adn.com/troopergate/
- First she would not tell us (Anchorage, Alaska) why she fired Monegan
- Then, finally, she said she wanted to take the department in a new direction.
- Took forever ( week at least) to get her to state what that direction was.
- Finally she said Monegan was not doing a good job of working on bootlegging in the villages and in recruiting new troopers—-she forgot that 3 weeks prior to this announcement she had stated on TV news that he was doing a great job in both of these departments.
- She even stated she had offered him a job on the Alcohol Board ( while firing him as commissioner) simply because he was doing such a good job in this area.
- Then, couple of days ago, she stated, he was not fired at all, that he quit.
- Now, she is stating he was fired and it was because of “egregious insubordination.”
- She is asking the Personnel Board—-3 people appointed by Palin—to dismiss the ethics complaint which she filed against herself in order to get it before the Personnel Board—- because some out of context e-mails sent to Monegan prior to his having been (fired/quit)”exonerate the Governor totally and completely, once and for all.”
- She filed this complaint against herself because she felt the legislative committee investigation (10 Republicans and 4Democrates) is politically motivated even though the investigation was started before McCain selected her.
- There is another ethics complaint filed against her for “demonizing” Trooper Wooten. A judge —in the child custody case—hard warned Palin’s family that their constant attacks on Wooten were becoming a form of child abuse.
- During all this, Monegan stated he was pressured to fire Wooten while Palin denied ANY pressure from ANYbody was put on him I.E SHE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANYONE CONTACTING MONEGAN ON THIS ISSUE
- Palin repeats her campaign promises of “open and transparent” governing policy—-while Poll by TV station shows 87% no longer think she is open and transparent—so much for the supposed 80% approval rating !
- Palin states, “Hold me responsible.” Regarding the legislative investigation, “Bring it on !”
- Legislature hires independent investigator
- Palin suddenly has Atty General ( who, it ends up also pressured Monegan) start investigating and immediately finds phone call from her staffer Frank Bailey to Troopers —-Bailey claims it was his idea and govenor had no input. He is put on PAID leave and remains that way today.
- Seems approximately 24 contacts were made with Monegan, from Todd Palin, Bailey, Attorney General, other staffers and PALIN HERSELF.
- Despite having previously denied anyone contacted Monegan ( Todd did so in the Governor’s office !) Palin states these contacts did NOT constitute pressure on Monegan.
- Palin has done nothing but refuse to cooperate with legislative investigation and now states she will not submit to questioning.i.e. she is” totally and completely exonerated” by Monegan’s supposed “egregious insubordination.”
- While Palin makes public the selected e-mails to Monegan, she illegally witholds other e-mails (there is legal action to obtain them) which may show her direct and intentional participation in the pressuring of Monegan to fire Wooten.
This site is collecting good wishes for Monegan and his family, to be forwarded to him. http://waltmoneganhonestleadership.blogspot.com/2008/09/walt-monegan-honest-leadership.html#comment-form
Please support this good man and his family.
Contradicting herself. Denying the grade-school-civics level basics of the separation of powers.
Yes, McCain is the pig, Palin is just the lipstick and we shouldn’t get distracted from the main point, but this is part of the main point: McCain selected someone for his vice president who is obviously corrupt.
I live in Anchorage and have observed Trooper-Gate from prior to it’s actual beginning.
Apostrophe issues aside, that's pretty impressive observing.
sounds like if they get elected, it will just be the same old same old.
She sounds either dumber or more blindly self-centered than the Shrub. Or maybe both.
Gads. (Barf)
She may not be qualified to be vice president, but she's certainly qualified to be in a republican administration. Ethics investigations, ignoring subpeonas, personal official email addresses.
Nothing here is _any_ different than the current white house.
Paula Helm Murray writes: "...sounds like if they get elected, it will just be the same old same old."
I'm inclined to think the result will likely be an acceleration of the decline of our élite classes into decadence and the further unraveling of our existing social order. Imagine for a moment what might happen when the Palin administration is faced with the wholesale decoupling of the U.S. dollar from its historic position as the world's reserve currency in the Bretton Woods II monetary system.
Starting warming up your fingers to type the word "Palinvilles" because that's where wed be going.
Jim, you say that Monegan is a "good man;" that may be true. Probably it is. Wooten probably isn't. But good man, bad man is irrelevant to the main story: the legislative branch has the right and duty to maintain watch over the executive branch and to question the executive when it appears he/she has exceeded his/her authority. Palin can't just say, this investigation is inconvenient and might make me look bad, therefore I refuse to participate. It's not an option. It's not. It's not.
What I tell you three times is true...
Boy, the karmic blowback, when it finally comes around, is going to be a bitch.
Don Boy: I think the writer means he's been looking into it from before it became a scandal, i.e. when it was just the oddities of the dismissal.
eric @ #3 -- whether or not it's different in terms of character, it is different in degree. McCain/Palin are willing to start asserting Bush's 2nd Doctrine (executive privilege trumps all) before they've got the executive!
Does this even have the bull$!t legal theory backing it that Bush's now-routine ignoring of supbeonas does? My IANAL understanding of the latter is that the excuse is executive privilege, plus some "separation of powers" argument in some circumstances (a la the Nixon era "the executive can't investigate itself"), along with, of course, the underlying appeal to the bald power politics of 'you don't have the guts to make me'.
But is the Palin refusal simply the last of those? Or is there some state-level version of the former two that she's relying on?
...either way, really, it makes me wonder if a Republican executive will ever follow a subpoena again.
I presume that, if (FSM willing) Obama wins, that he'll be subpoenaed -- inevitable if the R's take back a branch of Congress, but likely either way. And he'll obey. And the David Broders of the world will rejoice, and those who ever recognized the problem in the first place will declare it solved.
Then the next Republican will eventually get into office and use the Bush precedent to ignore subpoenas.
Personally I think this will only end when a Republican executive -- preferably a President, but perhaps a Governor would do -- is impeached for ignoring subpoenas. Otherwise they'll all ignore them under the ancient legal writ of IOIYAR.
Perhaps it's worth remembering that that was one of the bills of impeachment that was proceeding against Nixon at the time of his resignation.
(Despite this, I assume that the idea that this will only end with an impeachment of a Republican means that it will never, ever end -- until the country does.)
From what I'd heard there is something in the Alaska state constitution allowing something like executive privilege; and it shouldn't apply in this case. IANAL nor an Alaskan.
And apparently using a personal Yahoo account for official business...
Which then gets hacked...
JH Woodyatt @ 4 - leaving aside that it is several decades since the US$ fulfilled any real function as a reserve currency, we won't have to wait for a Palin administration to see the US$ decoupled. What do you think is happening right now?
Palin campaigns on the platform of cleaning up the Republican party in Alaska; all I've come up with on my own is she made public some shenanigans that their Oil and Gas Commission had been involved in.
Look, Alaska's an isolated, insular state, think of it as the US' outback. Palin fits the mold; secretive, strong cronyism, little interest in anything outside Alaskan borders, strong family ties, emphasis on religion, etc. McCain has wrapped a blanket around her while she's on the campaign trail for fear of voters finding these kinds of things out about her. While she's technically qualified for the White House, (age minimum, legal citizen of the US, no felony convictions), she's unfit because she's got no experience outside her own state's borders. Not to mention a page's worth of public statements that show her views do not mesh with more than a small minority of voters.
j h woodyatt at #4
Palinvilles ?
Jörg Raddatz @14:
The reference is to Hoovervilles, a piece of American history we'd rather not see repeated.
#14 Jorg
If it's not bad form for me to chip in, it's a reference to Hooverville, the various shanty towns built by the homeless in the years of the Great Depression. These days, of course, I imagine they would be cleared with water cannon.
Would somebody remind me which party stands for 'values'?
You know, either McCain couldn't find a far right conservative who wasn't also under an ethics investigation, or he decided the ethics investigation wasn't an issue. I don't know which is worse. (Part of me wonders if McCain is deliberately provoking the dog and pony show. He knows he can't win on the issues.)
As with every other case where a candidate's actions blatantly contradict that same candidate's words, I hope this spreads and people realize that this is ultimately not good for the country.
Fragano @ #17: They both stand for values -- now, deciding which ones go with each? That's a whole nother question :-)
j h woodyatt @ 4:
From the Wikipedia article you cited:
In 2005, Roubini and Setser argued that the system is unsustainable:
If the US does not take policy steps to reduce its need for external financing before it exhausts the world’s central banks willingness to keep adding to their dollar reserves – and if the rest of the world does not take steps to reduce its dependence on an unsustainable expansion in US domestic demand to support its own growth – the risk of a hard landing for the US and global economy will grow. The basic outlines of a hard landing are easy to envision: a sharp fall in the value of the US dollar, a rapid increase in US long-term interest rates and a sharp fall in the price of a range of risk assets including equities and housing. The asset price adjustment would lead to a severe slowdown in the US, and the fall in US imports associated with the US slowdown and the dollar’s fall would lead to a global severe economic slowdown, if not an outright recession.
OK, so Bernanke is doing what he can to buck the trend, but he's shouting orders to the tide. Now, what was it you wanted me to imagine again?
#18 John, "either McCain couldn't find ... who wasn't also under an ethics investigation, or he decided the ethics investigation wasn't an issue. I don't know which is worse."
That suggests that she is a decoy, and the plan is for her to step down at the right time for the real VP choice. Then we'd go into the elections with the new choice still in her honeymoon with the press.
Of course, it could get messy (and quite entertaining) if she decided she didn't want to step down, despite party orders. Does that strike anyone else as likely? How about entertaining?
He died over 50 years ago, but somehow Governor Palin puts me in mind of one of Mississippi's more egregious contibutions to the political scene, Theodore Bilbo. When you look at the brief overview, do not be distracted by the racism, because you'll miss the bit about hiding in a barn to duck a subpoena, and the state senate refusing to seat him on the grounds that he was unfit to associate with honest men, and the war with Mississippi's university system, and all the rest.
OK, she's taller, and better looking.
Nangleator @21, no, I don't think so. I think John @18 is right: Republicans knew they couldn't possibly win on a fair field, so they are trying to stir up as much dust as they can, to make it as close as possible, and then hope in a new Florida-2000.
John @ 18, I've got a third option. McCain and his vetting team are so incompetent he didn't know (or understand) she was under serious investigation.
Quoting from rec.humor.funny:
Saddam Hussein's Law Degree
bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys)
(topical, original, funny)
ABC's Good Morning America show today interviewed an expert on military history, who said something that I didn't know, namely, that Saddam Hussein actually has a law degree. He went on to point out that the degree was granted under somewhat unusual circumstances: Saddam Hussein was accompanied by two heavily armed guards into the examination room, and apparently it was felt that there was no need to grade the exam.
Upon hearing this, my first thought was that Saddam had cheated. But the expert quickly pointed out that the incident demonstrates that Saddam really has an excellent understanding of Iraqi law.
Palin and McCain have an excellent understanding of current U.S. judicial and administrative practise.
Fragano: isn't nepotism a value? I mean, if you can't use the power of your high office to benefit your friends, then obviously you must not be very loyal to them, and why should anyone vote for a politician with such a character flaw?
These days, of course, I imagine they would be cleared with water cannon.
So much more efficient than clearing them with cavalry! And they say there's no progress...
This lurker thanks you for writing about this issue. I have a question for anyone with deeper political/legal knowledge than I: is there any other possible explanation, besides being guilty as accused, for Ms. Palin and her staff to refuse to comply with the subpoenas issued? Yes, she complains that the investigation is politically motivated. But wouldn't standing up and providing the evidence that might vindicate her (if such a thing exists) clear up charges and make her look pretty damn good? Is it reasonable of me to assume guilt since she's not willing to do so?
Seth #26:
Surely, nepotism is a family value.
#28: Is it reasonable of me to assume guilt since she's not willing to do so?
No. In America the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
However: Obstruction of justice is, itself, a crime.
Regardless of the facts in the Troopergate matter, I would like to see an investigation, charges, trials, and jail time (if found guilty) for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, with the name on the top of the indictment being John McCain.
Please read The Field Negro's guest blogger, Tim Wise, on Sarah Palin and white privilege..
In fact, I'd recommend reading The Field Negro regularly.
Chris #27:
Well, horses do have this inconvenient habit of accidentally killing people. Whereas anyone killed with a water cannon will die safe in the knowledge that somebody actually meant it.
I am delurking but only to question teh patriotism of the people on this board. Are we this quick to condemn someone without knowing if the facts are the facts? I know Palin is a favored whipping horse here but who really knows if sje did what they say?
MAL, #28: What you're suggesting is a version of the "only drug users would object to random drug testing" argument. I think you can see the flaw in the reasoning there -- and, as Jim points out, obstruction of justice is a crime in itself.
Fiji @33:
I am delurking but only to question teh patriotism of the people on this board.
That sounds much more like driving by than delurking, to be honest, or you'd have a better idea of our patriotism. Most of our regular readers, whether or not they comment, have worked out exactly how much the Americans on this site care about the US and choose our actions to pursue its best interests.
Reading here might even have given you some faint notion of what patriotism is, and is not. Questioning ours because we hold particular views about a candidate in an election, and use our First Amendment rights to express them, isn't really giving much evidence that you do. The point of an election is to test and evaluate candidates, so that only the best are elected, to the greater health of the Republic.
Feel free to question our impartiality, but maybe find something we've done that isn't in pursuit of the best interests of the US (for the American posters here, at least) before you try that one again.
Are we this quick to condemn someone without knowing if the facts are the facts? I know Palin is a favored whipping horse here but who really knows if sje did what they say?
We would very much like to know if she did what they say. Unfortunately, Palin's refusal to co-operate with the investigation is rather an impediment to that.
It is true that she is innocent until proven guilty, as Jim re-emphasizes in comment 30. But absent any such proof, we may certainly condemn her for obstruction of justice.
#30 ::: James D. Macdonald:
#28: Is it reasonable of me to assume guilt since she's not willing to do so?
No. In America the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
In the American judicial system, the accused is innocent unless proven guilty.
However, the public can make any guesses that please it.
Fiji: That's low. If you've really been lurking here you've not been paying attention.
No one here is saying, ipso facto, she's guilty of the things accused of (not even the person who asked what she was trying to hide).
What is being said (and in keeping with the scurrilous charge you just made) is her actions in saying she, "declines to participate" are prima facie indications she has no respect for the rule of law.
Insisting those elected to office (esp. high office) have such is about as patriotic as it gets.
I am delurking but only to question teh patriotism of the people on this board.
Feel free to question my patriotism by all means!
Patriotism is commonly the first resort of dyed-in-the-wool scoundrels who can't come up with any actual arguments to support their position. By responding to allegations of criminal wrongdoing with an appeal to patriotism, you're making it quite clear that you value partisan alliegance above the rule of law.
(Speaking as a non-American.)
Fiji @ 33: I will assume that you are genuinely asking, for a moment. Most of the people here are questioning in an attempt to find out what the facts are. Aren't you patriotic enough to think that our system of checks and balances, of legal questions that should be publicly answered rather than ignored, is worth preserving? That someone refusing to comply with a legally issued subpoena is not a fit subject for discussion? Wh d y ht mrc? (Pre-emptively disemvowelled, according to the Bush Doctrine)
@ 33 I didn't realize that a belief in the rule of law was now unpatriotic.
I take Jim and Lee's point that the principal of presumed innocence is hugely important and I like Lee's analogy with random drug testing but I also would like to point out that you are only innocent until proven guilty in LAW.
I don't think it's either unfair or unreasonable (or unpatriotic!) to use your brain to make judgements about people. I have made the judgement that Palin is corrupt, but that doesn't imply that I have any opinion about her guilt or innocence on any legal charge.
I will note Fiji has managed to derail the thread somewhat.
So... I wonder why Palin thinks the Republican led committee investigating her won't give her a fair shake? So much does she believe this she would rather publically break some laws, rather than trust the system to vindicate that she didn't break other laws.
I should like to note that if she's innocent of wrongdoing in this case, Palin may nevertheless want to evade investigation under the following circumstances:
* She's guilty of something else that she fears will come to light during a thorough investigation
* She's not guilty, but is protecting someone who is
* She's not guilty but believes the folks investigating her are running a witch-hunt that will produce trumped-up evidence (I find it hard to believe that she'd have grounds for this one with members of her own party running the investigation)
"Palin has 'declined to participate' in the probe"...this just brings my mind right back to this thread. Since when was denying to "participate" in a government investigation optional? What does she think it is, a dodge-ball game? A sewing circle? An online discussion forum? And how long before we start hearing the argument, "Well, she's refusing to participate, and she has that right" as another "everybody knows" meme?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
That's the type of patriotism I was speaking about and i dont' want to derail the conversation
we shoudl always question our government but before we do that we should base those questions on what our brains tell us not our headss
Fiji, one of the defining characteristics of tyrants is that they consider themselves to be above the law.
Refusing to cooperate with a lawful investigation by a branch of government charged with oversight of their office does indeed look like the action of someone who considers themselves to be above the law.
There are more stories about Kenya's Pastor Muthee, who will be speaking at the Wasilla Assemblies of God again this weekend. Go here.
Perhaps a McPln administration would make money available for faith-based organizations to give witch-hunting workshops and Homeland Security will add witch-hunting to its brief.
Pastor Muthee has frequently referred to this witchhunt in his sermons as an example of the power of “spiritual warfare”. In October 2005, he delivered ten sermons at the Wasilla Assembly of God, the audio of which was available on the church’s website until it was removed around the time Mrs Palin’s candidacy was announced. The blog Irregular Times has listings and screen grabs of the sermons.It was during these sermons that Mrs Palin, who was then preparing for her gubernatorial run, was anointed by Pastor Muthee. His intercession, she says, was “awesome”.
Her June 8 speech was to mark the graduation of students from the Wasilla Assembly of God’s Masters’ Commission, which, as Pastor Ed Kalins
explains, believes Alaska will be the refuge for American evangelicals upon the coming “End of Days”. After her speech, Mrs Palin was presented with an honorary Masters’ Commission diploma.
Reagan was the Overture. The last 8 years the Symphony. Now comes Armageddon.
Love, C.
Fiji #44: When last I checked the brain was located in the head.
we shoudl always question our government but before we do that we should base those questions on what our brains tell us not our headss
What my head and my brain tell me is that Palin has given a series of somewhat contradictory reasons for firing Monegan, after (it is alleged) having pressured him to fire her former brother-in-law despite the findings of internal state police officials that his actions didn't justify dismissal.
My head and brain also tell me that this kind of vindictiveness, if proven, is not the sort of behavior I would want someone a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States to exhibit. Presidents should be bigger than that.
fiji @ 44 -
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. I have, so far, advocated the reading of another of Mssr. Jefferson's famous documents -
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But there comes a time when evils are no longer sufferable. Beware, and work most assiduously to deter and delay that day - by voting, by arguing, by suing, by every method available. We've been through a "civil" war - and a century and more later, the wounds are still not completely healed, and some are little more than scabbed over.
Make no mistake - the people on this board are as patriotic as any - perhaps moreso, because there are few higher callings than criticizing a government that needs criticizing, and working to bring it back to the path of righteousness.
One last quote -
Ainsley Hayes: I said don't say that. Say they're smug and superior, say their approach to public policy makes you want to tear your hair out. Say they like high taxes and spending your money. Say they want to take your guns and open your borders, but don't call them worthless. At least don't do it in front of me. The people that I have met have been extraordinarily qualified, their intent is good. Their commitment is true, they are righteous, and they are patriots. And I'm their lawyer.
"Irrelevant quote to prove I'm better than you."
Feel ashamed that you have attacked someone powerful, and therefore better than you.
Truth is okay, as long as it doesn't interfere with obedience. I feel it in my heart, not in the thumpy thing under my ribs.
This very interesting comment from Andrew Sullivan's site suggests another reason why Sarah Palin thinks she can simply refuse to cooperate with a legal investigation. If your belief-system tells you that you are God's instrument, and that the way God communicates his will to you is through your feelings, then when you feel uncomfortable about something, that very discomfort may be God's voice.
I do not intend to hijack this thread into a conversation about the nature of a well-formed conscience, magical thinking, fundamentalism, or any of that. Though I would like to know if Palin believes in the Rapture.
Obeying the Law is for Wimps
...who hate America. Don't forget that part.
Every day brings fresh evidence that McCain is personally incompetent, and his campaign is utterly corrupt - yet polls indicate the race is even. People aren't changing their minds.
McCain shouldn't have selected a VP candidate in the middle of an ethics investigation in the first place. The basic Palin maneuver being attempted is to get the investigation out of the usual channels and have the governor's actions instead handled as a personnel matter. She said earlier on that she wanted openness in the personnel investigation, but there are personnel laws protecting privacy that would make it illegal for the details of such investigation and some or all of its findings to be made public.
Interesting maneuver, but its one that shouldn't work even if the McCain campaign forces things into that direction. (Wouldn't it be cool for politicians if ethics violations were handled that way? Isn't it a truly awful idea?)
#33 Fiji
Are YOU a veteran?
Are you inviting me to spit in your eye if you aren't?
I served, Macdonald served, Terry is current National Guard, and there are probably other honorably serving or honorably discharged from the military people in here.
Got any other bogus attacks to make?
Lizzy L, I don't know if she believes in the Rapture, but I understand the church(es) she goes to do, and may be actively working to get the rst of the world to Armageddon.
#49, Scott Taylor:
If I may, I think it worth quoting the next sentence too:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Emphasis added.
I've also long thought that "a Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, [who] is unfit to be the ruler of a free people" is the best thumbnail description of George W. Bush I know of.
#54 Paul Lieberman:
I get why you wrote this. But it seems to play into a larger disturbing trend of some people in the US taking military service as the only marker of patriotism (which is itself a part of an even larger & even more disturbing trend of our culture's militarism). I don't think that people need to be in the military to prove their patriotism; and I think that citing the former to prove the latter pushes the culture in an undesirable direction.
(...admittedly, I'm probably being oversensitive and/or leaping on my own hobby horse here. Still seems true, though.)
I think the best response to #33 is the one given in various ways above: get a grip and read what people on this board have said in the past. What you're charging is preposterous on its face.
On the front page sidebar, the article titled "Sarah Palin's Three Churches..." should be required reading.
FOR EVERY VOTER
That she has NEVER repudiated anything said by her Assembly of God church she attended for over two decades tells me she does believe their crazy utterings, probably to the point that she realizes revealing them would end her aspirations to the White House in a heartbeat.
The woman's as far to the right on the political spectrum that a politician can get, IMO, but she hides it by being "just a hockey mom, like you", until she gets in a position of authority.
Then it is all about feelings, and beliefs, and who is her friend and who isn't, and all those facts and figures, well, they don't matter because those are material things, and she's trying to prepare for the End Times, you know.
A bad bounce appeared in the polls
with reminders to join voting rolls
then some clown with a 'tude
made some comments most rude
but still, we should not feed the trolls
Fiji: So, because we are saying Gov. Palin is less than qualified to be VP because she sees herself as above the law, we are, so you said @33, Are we this quick to condemn someone without knowing if the facts are the facts? I know Palin is a favored whipping horse here but who really knows if sje did what they say?
From that we are supposed to think you believe us unwilling to shed the blood of tyrants?
Saying we ought to be thinking her innocent seems a pretty strange condemnation of a lack of diligence in the killing of tyrants.
Kathryn Cramer: It gets better. She's requested the personnel committee dismiss the case because of some impropriety in the collection of evidence... if that happens she will (I have no doubt) tout that as being cleared.
Steven Frug: Yes, and I fear, with the cold clammy nightsweats of a thousand fevers, the day it comes to pass I see it my duty to make the pledge at the bottom of that, and gamble my life, my (meagre) fortune and my sacred honor on it.
I don't see a cohesive revolt (insomuch as it was cohesive) such as the last one? Who will be the Tories? Where will fly the Loyalists? How will someplace so large as this one has become recover itself without fracturing to a dozen petty principlalities?
If it comes to open fighting in the streets, there are groups who will not live with each other. The dominionists, and the racists and the rest will say, "No, we will not have it" and they will fight to make it so.
That sort of rupture won't be fixable. It may be some semblance of it will be remade, but it won't be the size, nor the grandeur this iteration had the promise to be.
So I fight for the one, and against the other, with every fiber of my being; though it grind me down from the sysiphean nature of the task.
In my experience, people who quote Jefferson on blood very often up...not just declining to help in efforts to reduce the risk of blood shed over civic fundamentals, but actively interfering or at least trying to distract and demoralize those doing the work. Jefferson himself didn't believe in plunging right into revolution (as Scott Taylor's well-chosen quote shows); he appreciated that steps way short of violence are preferable, whenever they can do the job.
It's worth noting what the presumption of innocence in law doesn't require. For starters, it doesn't require that anybody refrain from individual judgment - on the part of prosecutors, first off. Investigation of an alleged crime requires someone willing to consider whether suspects may in fact be guilty and then work through what would constitute evidence of that guilt, and then see if they can or can't assemble a case against one or more suspects. Prosecution (including investigation) requires speculating on guilt in advance of anything except some evidence suggesting a connection to the crime, if in fact it turns out there is a crime.
Nor does it require that the rest of us refrain from having an opinion, or refrain from expressing it. There's an obligation not to muddy the pool of public opinion in ways that make it hard to get a fair jury, yes. But Making Light is not at much risk of doing it. We have an obligation to be aware of the limits of our opinions, to be skeptical and self-scrutinizing - all things that McCain and Palin and their movement are very bad at, come to that - but this should never extend so far as to make us afraid to say anything like "As nearly as I can tell..." or "The evidence I've seen points toward..." and then expressing an opinion or even a tentative conclusion with confidence and clarity.
And at the risk of getting too partisan, the Democrats have a particularly proud point of legacy here. During World War II, then Senator Truman led investigations of war profiteering as the war was going on, leading to the punishment of companies who had in fact been supplying war materiel. It undoubtedly made fighting the war harder at some points, but it also improved America's moral standing and its operational justice and efficiency. And while the Roosevelt administration wasn't thrilled, it did cooperate. This is a stark contrast to the cowardly bullying sort of response that this current administration makes in response to any questioning of its authority, competence, honesty, and so on.
We are entirely within our rights to want two things:
Administrations that are in fact run with honesty, competence, and respect for the law, and
Administrations that are shown to be run with etc etc, because they cooperate with investigations and let charges be aired fully and resolved in accordance with good procedures.
This is patriotism in action - having high ideals and seeking to put them into practice, and not settling for tawdry excuses for obvious shortcomings that can and should be fixed.
ll wntd t d ws mk n bsrvtn nd ps qstn t ths dscssn nd vrn s jmpng t cnclsns - xcpt Pl wh wnts t spt n m y, tht's rtnl crs f ctn nd s fr mltr srvc bng dfntn f ptrts, rmmbr tht th mn n th mlts wr cmmn frmrs nd shp kprs, nt prfssnl sldrs
trr r y stg ctr? bcs tht lst pst rd lk smthng wrttn by tw bt hck wh nvr gt vr bng th nxt Shkspr
rvlts n th strt vr ths? y r tkng t wy t srsl
Stephen #57:
Amen. We aren't the Draka. Joining the military isn't the highest calling to which one can aspire, it's one of a large set of necessary and important things the country needs to continue functioning. We need soldiers, just as we need doctors and engineers and policemen and journalists and lawyers and judges and merchants and writers and inventors and engineers and all kinds of other people.
IMO, the whole meme that only soldiers or veterans are "true" patriots is poisonous as hell.
martyn @12: "What do you think is happening right now?"
The decoupling has not happened yet. If the orderly unwinding of the redonkulous leveraging in the American financial industry succeeds, then the decoupling we're talking about might be orderly as well, and in that case, we have "just" the worst recession since the Great Depression. If it isn't orderly, which is what I would expect if McCain/Palin were anywhere in the decision loop in the event of a diplomatic crisis with one or more of our largest current account deficit partners, well— what was that Shinydan Howells @16 said about water cannons?
Fiji, out of curiosity, when random strangers insultingly question your patriotism and common decency, how do you react? We see that you certainly get huffy enough when your motives for drive-by sneering are questioned.
Maybe, if you treated others the way you yourself would like to be treated (a practice endorsed by eminent sages throughout the ages), you'd have less reason to feel prickly.
Feed ye not the trolls, dear friends.
Fiji @62: "all i wanted to do was make an observation and pose a question to this discussion and eveyrone is jumping to conclusions"
Um, what was the question again?
I am delurking but only to question teh patriotism of the people on this board.
Was that your observation or your first question?
I ask because, when you lead off your questions with an observation about the questionability of the patriotism of the people you're addressing, it takes quite a bit of arrogance to then act all shocked and amazed when they start jumping to conclusions about who you might be and what you're trying to accomplish in the discussion.
Stephen - there is, really, only one difference, in my mind, between folks who served, and those who didn't, in terms of patriotism (there can be many other differences, especially between combat veterans and those who have been fortunate enough never to face the elephant) -
Those of us who served - however briefly - swore one of the following oaths (first is for enlisted personnel, the second is for commissioned officers* -
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)
or
I, [name], do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. (So help me God.)
We stood there, in front of our peers, an officer of our service (a Captain took mine, so many years ago), and (if we believe) our God(s), and swore a binding oath of loyalty and service to our Constitution and our Nation - something not required of native citizens of this fair land** (naturalized citizens have to swear an oath of citizenship).
Beyond that - I see no difference. But... you know, I will admit to giving a bit - just a bit - of preference to those who chose to stand there, and swear that oath. Because I know how sobering it is - or at least how sobering it was for me -
this is real. I'm standing here and swearing that I will give my life, if it is demanded of me, for my country. eep.
I never forswore that oath, and was never formally released from it. I hope and pray that I am never called upon to exercise it, beyond bearing witness in full measure and good faith - because, as Terry notes, it's very likely*** that a second American revolution will not - at all - be anything resembling as clean as the Civil War was.
*there is a different version of the commissioned officer's oath for those serving in the National Guard.
**nor, I should add, should it be. Oaths of fealty not entered into with eyes open and voluntarily are pernicious and vile.
***a blitzkrieg-style revolt, where the existing government was pulled down from power and an interim government put in place before anyone else could get up a head of steam might be able to declare a fait accompli and make it stick. But that requires serious organization and training - and the FBI is really good at infiltrating groups in the US.
A patriot loves his country always, and his government when it deserves it.
Enough said.
cofax said:
My head and brain also tell me that this kind of vindictiveness, if proven, is not the sort of behavior I would want someone a heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States to exhibit. Presidents should be bigger than that.
I agree, of course, but ...I do have a sneaking admiration for LBJ, who seemingly wallowed in this sort of vindictiveness, and managed to get a lot of cool things done, too.
Spamedy-spomedy
unwonted comedy
ill-written troll postings
beg a retort
patriot spammer post
vowels turned into toast
net sliming budget must
be running short!
I'm a huge fan of The Daily Show, but I was very depressed by his interview with C. Theron last night about her part in the movie "Battle in Seattle" (with comments about civil disturbance in Minn. as well).
Both Stewart and Theron talked about the disturbances as if they had been led by and participated in largely by anarchists. I don't want to hide the anarchists' participation (like the nitwits who want to hide the drag queens at Pride [g]), but acting as if these demonstrations are solely the act of anarchists (or Anarchists) makes them seem like they are done by people outside of the mainstream, unlike 'us', the tv viewer/citizen. I found it very disheartening.
And I know it's a comedy show, but we have so few liberal voices on television...
Bruce Baugh @ #61 and everyone else, in regard to "moral authority" and aspirations thereto, I recommend heading off to your local library to get a copy of Ron Suskind's latest book, "The Way of the World," in which he argues that the best way to fight the terrorism threat is to regain that authority.
Mark #69: A patriot loves his country always, and his government when it deserves it.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." -- Edward Abbey
@ Liz Ditz: thanks for the Field Negro link. Good blog. And I like the side "ads", he he...
Scott @68:
I'd gladly swear the love and honor parts, but I draw the line at obeying. I have no lawful superior.
But that tiny bit of preference disturbs me, because that is a seed that has borne much poisonous fruit. Watch that one, please, with great care.
Thanks, Linkmeister. I find Suskind a worthwhile read. But for me the great exposition of the concept came from hearing Dith Pran in person, after a screening of The Killing Fields in college. He spoke so quietly and clearly about how the image of America as a place where high ideals are aimed at affects people's responses to the usually uglier realities. I was at the time inclined to be a political cynic, but I thought (and think) that if someone who went through what he did could emerge and insist on the vital importance of idealism, then I could maybe get a clue from him.
When in the course of human events....
The civic libraries and librarians in Masschusetts, home of the first public libraries in the United States of America, in rejection of the spirit of the so-called Patriot Act, created a unified policy response of purging all information about patron's book borrowing once the borrowed books were returned. Secret inquiries * by the Department of t/h/e N/i/g/h/t/w/a/t/c/h (I don't know the HTML markers for strikethrough...) Homeland Security demanding records on patron book access, therefore, don't exist to be turned over, beyond the time when the books are actually on loan.
* DHS investigation makes cockroaches scurrying around in the deep dark night look like open access... nobody is legally roadblocking interfering with cockroaches and suppressing their depradations.
Ah, I realize that I'm being oblique.
Connections path:
a) An informed citizenry
b) An informed citizenry is important to maintaining a democracy
c) Palin is a book-banner, and information censorship promulgator. The circumstantial evidence is that one of the books she wanted excised from the Wasilla library was a book by a pastor's non-horrified perspective on homosexuals and homosexuality in society. Palin as censor also applies to sex education and gagging any discussion of contraception except by "abstinence," gag ordering discussion of prevention of transmission of disease by use of barrier methods also usable for contraception, and complete gag order on and banning of mention of *b*rt*n. Palin apparently succeeded in her own household at least of promoting the deliquency of a minor becoming pregnant, by her attitudes....
d) Getting back to public libraries--Palin wanted the content in libraries limited to what she considers appropriate content.
e) DHS secretly snoops into the book reading records for US citizens, and bars the citizens from any access to information that the citizesn are being SPIED on by the US Government
f) This is no limit on DHS covert spying and no way apparently to get public oversight of these Star Chamber Stasi types.
g) Palin seems to have no objection to secret surveillance and Star Chambers, and again, is someone seeking to limit information access--and presumably spy on people and lock them up based on what they read, that she finds offensive.
h) This violated "life, liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness," and multiple items in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
i) Palin, far from uphold and defending the Constiution, is defiling, abusing, and obliterating it.
Patriotism? Palin fits better as a Stalinist or Inquisition or Taliban appartchik, carefully editing and censoring and banning and throwing in jail or liquidating those with the temerity to believe in the freedom to read and write books without (religious) police shoving one back into a burning building to burn to death for noncompliance, or burning or beheading in public.
Liz @ 31: Thanks for that excellent link! He is now bookmarked for daily reading.
Hw hypcrtcl tht th ppl n ths brd, wh r s qck t scrm thy'r bng rprssd dn chmpn fr spch r s qck t mss wth my pstng, yt pl thrtns t spt t m nd sh cn g hd nd pst lnght, slghtly prnd rnt
th rglrs gt th rn f ht plc nd th vstrs gt stmpd - tht sms jst lk th rpblcn prty, f y skd m
Fiji: Are you an honest actor? Because I find you claim of lurking to be something less than credible if you think I was in some way out of character.
Steven mentioned revolt. I explained why I dread the thought. You may dislike the fervor of my opinion, but it's not two-bit hackery (and certainly not failed, I think accusing people who value the rile of law of being unpatriotic for expressing that; and then trying to hind behind Jefferson, implying that your abusive comment was in some way calling for the blood of tyrants, well it doesn't quite rise to 2-bit hakery, more like 1-bit).
If you were a regular reader you would know my florid style, and recognise it for what it is, a way to express strong feeling while drawing on the tropes of the national memory.
Thus do I decide you are a troll, and will; hencforth (in all my archaic hackery) ignore you and walk blithely across your bridges in future.
Adapt, or starve.
Fiji, no one here has "screamed" that she/he/we are being "repressed."
I think you will be more comfortable once you go back beneath that bridge.
Dumb question:
Are there other cases like this, where the executive branch of the state or nation just flat refuses to comply with investigations? What's supposed to stop it from happening?
I mean, it can't really be the case that powerful people can ignore legal orders with impunity. But it seems like in both this case and some of the Bush administration cases, the executive branch pretty much says "you've issued the order, but we're not going to comply with it." What happens next?
It seems like, if this is a workable strategy, nobody under the protection of the president or governor would ever be prosecuted for anything or investigated for anything.
I have a feeling I'm ODing on political coverage lately, because so much of it fits a really uncomfortable, ugly pattern. What happens to the country when the powerful simply realize they don't have to obey the law? Do you get Russia, or Somalia? Does the legislature eventually become powerless in practice? Do you get some kind of destructive power struggle between branches ("Here's the revised budget we've passed for next year, note that the Justice Dept now has zero dollars of funding. We recommend that its employees seek new jobs before the start of the next fiscal year.")
Did the Clinton administration do this stuff? The Reagan and first Bush admins? Maybe it's commonplace, and I just never noticed....
Fiji:
Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a moderator here. I've removed the vowels from your more tiresome and inflammatory comments; it's a local custom that allows us to read what you've written if we choose, but not if we don't.
Let me explain why I've done this, in the unlikely event that this is not the reaction you were expecting. You came in insulting people (denigrating their patriotism). After a brief foray into incomprehensibility, you moved to further personal insults. Now you're complaining that we won't leave your rude and inflammatory remarks up to annoy future readers.
If you would like to come back and post something interesting, with actual content, that furthers the conversation, please feel free. You don't have to agree with other people, but you must treat them with respect, and you must include something that can actually be discussed. Facts are nice, assertions amusing, and opinions should have a certain amount of evidence to back them up.
If all you can do is whine, rant, mutter and grumble, go elsewhere.
#84 albatross
There was a town in the USA which had a town bully, whom the Law in the town was doing nothing to protect the townsfolk against.
One day, after years of the town bully's abusiveness, someone or someones killed the town bully, in the town, during daylight hours, when people were up and about.
There were no witnesses, or rather, there was no one person findable as a witness.
No, the Clinton Administration most certainly did not do "this stuff."
If you check the records of various Senate and House Committees during those two terms, any time someone in the Clinton Admin was requested or subpoena'd to appear before said committees -- they were there on the appointed day and time.
In fact -- check back through the Bush I and Reagan Admins, and I think you'll find that they did the same as Clinton.
It's George II that seems to think he and his are above the law.
re patriotism.
I resist, mightily, the idea that service raises one to some level of more patriotic.
I am a patriot. I an american; can't avoid it (and travel pointed it up to me, in a big way). I love the idea of america, and wish; desperately, we lived up to even 1/2 that ideal (I used to think 3/4s, but the events of the last eight years have disabused me of thinking we are that high at present).
I chose to serve. It wasn't, for all of the above, some act of patriotism. I don't know, anymore, why I did it. I do know that 16 years of doing it has changed my view of it, a lot.
Do I trust vets more than others? Sometimes. I am more willing to extend a trust to them; just as a mason might to a fellow mason. It's an initial trust, they have to earn more than that, and the bar is higher; because that oath is in the back of my mind.
Do they have to have the same idea of the ideals of the constitution I do? No, not quite. But they must be bearing some faith to the written word. McCain lost that for me in 2006. His failure to support Kerry against the sliming of the Swift Boat Boys hurt him a lot (betrayal of comrades is a big deal... and one of those things which is outside patriotism. It's a tribal deal), but that was personal.
His giving Bush more than he wanted on torture... broke the contract. He lost my last shreds of respect.
He's since given up what dignity he had, with the relentless drumbeat of, "I am a Veteran. I was a POW; that explains everything which looks bad, and forgives it too."
Bullshit. Soldiers are people, we make mistakes. We fail to live up to our potential. Merely being overtly (and at times slavishly) supportive of the nation's actions doesn't make one a patriot. It makes one a jingoist.
Being a Patriot means working to keep the nation as she should be, not merely as she is.
And none of us has a pass to doing that forever, we have to do it every day.
Paula Lieberman #86: There were no witnesses, or rather, there was no one person findable as a witness.
That reminds me of a line from the movie Road House: "A polar bear fell on me."
You have really got to wonder if Fiji is reading the same board as the rest of us.
Anyway, back to the issue at hand - how does one deal with an executive (which controls the law enforcement) that refuses to submit to legislative subpoeana? I'm more than a little curious since the stand off between Bush and Congress a while back.
Trey @90:
Congress's next step: Hauling the villains in by using either the House or Senate"s Sargeant-At-Arms, depending on which entity has subpoena'd them. Yes, they can be arrested and rumor has it that there are cells in the basement of the Capitol building.
There's also a procedure called "inherent contempt" -- that's one that I'm not clear on -- anyone here who can explain it?
Didn't President Jackson once make a comment that the judicial branch had made their decision, now let them try and enforce it, in response to his forcible relocation of Cherokee Indians?
In reality, though, as long as the legislature and judicial branches act as if their spines had been removed long ago, the executive branch will act, well, as Bush Jr.'s administration has been acting.
Palin's just taking a page from Bush's playbook.
Trey: Depends on who is doing the issuing. Congress has the authority to compell (contempt of congress), and the means (the House Sgt at Arms; as well the DC Metro Police; I don't know to whom the Capitol Police answer, but I think they answer to the Legislative. Certainly one of those three has the power to get some other agency to assist them in serving a Warrant of Arrest).
The second means is the power of the purse. Nothing bars a legislature from stopping all payments to the Executive until the answer the subpoenas.
What is lacking, is spine.
Terry @ 88: This seems to be a theme today. You might want to check out this post on the Group News Blog.
Lori @ 90: Thanks. But that seems a little, well, silly in the face of various protective details. Any other options?
Damn. Y'all are quick.
John L @ 92 and Terry @ 93: In short, if there is the spine, defund various executive branch projects until the subpoenas are answered, it might work. The legislature may take a PR beating, but that's where careful and judicious reading of budget proposals comes in.
Then there is the option of working through the enforcement means available (and perhaps a sypathetic governor). Though it would be ugly for a stand off between, say, a bunch of state troopers and Cheney's protective detail (which I have seen - for an office not worth a bucket of warm spit, that was intense and impressive).
And I'd love to see some spine from all three branches of government to tell the truth.
#95 Trey
Alito and Roberts and Scalia and Thomas have spine.... what they stand up for I usually find heinous, but they do have spine.
I want spine in promulgating and protecting values and ideals I respect rather than deplore.
"So are they all, all honorable men...." -- Marc Anthony, in Julius Caesar, in his funeral oration for Julius Caesar regarding Caesar's murderers.
I saw Fj's first post, and I must say that my disemvowelling sense was tingling.
I'm wondering if there's anyone who's started with anything like that line who hasn't gotten disemvowelled within 5 posts.
As I understand it, inherent contempt means that Congress can send out its sergeant-at-arms (with backup from other law-enforcement agencies, but I'm not sure which ones) to arrest/bring in the person(s) in contempt, without going to a court or a DA/USA for authority. Regular contempt has to go through the courts, and the ones that DC falls under are also the ones most under the control of Bush and Cheney.
Some of us have been trying to get Congress to go the route of inherent contempt for, oh, a year or so. First you have to get them to understand they have this tool, and then that they really do have power ....
eric @98:
I'm wondering if there's anyone who's started with anything like that line who hasn't gotten disemvowelled within 5 posts.
To be perfectly honest, I've no idea. I try not to fit behavior into pre-existing patterns, but to try each one out on its own merits. Not tracking the patterns themselves is a great help to that endeavor.
I do note that one of our more recent acquisitions recovered from having his first two comments disemvoweled. It can happen. People vary enormously, and never cease to surprise.
Sometimes even in good ways.
Lori Coulson @ #91, "rumor has it that there are cells in the basement of the Capitol building."
Those are not rumors. In Ron Suskind's new book, p. 35:
Even after all the astonishing turns of the past hour, Usman can't quite believe there's actually an interrogation room beneath the White House..."
Usman is a Pakistani working for a DC law firm named Barnes Richardson who happened to be walking past the White House during a moment when Bush was leaving town heading for Crawford in July of 2006. He was carrying a backpack and looked suspicious to the Secret Service.
Amendment:
Ok, the WH rather than the Capitol, but the concept is the same.
Linkmeister: I've not seen them, but I seem to recall they number eight, and they are beneath the House (as befits them being the direct representatives of the people).
As long as we're talking about the rule of law and involving the Founders, here's a personal favorite of mine, from Paine:
But where, say some, is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king.
Abi et al.: Don't you know? Fiji thinks he's entitled to win the argument. It doesn't matter who he's talking to, what the subject is, or how much he knows; he's still entitled. That's why guys like him turn into such whiny little weenies the minute they run into a forum where people argue like grownups.
It's also why their favorite comeback is to call us hypocrites (which word is practically a genetic marker for internet weenies). What they're actually saying is, "That interaction didn't come out the way I expected, and it's All Your Fault! You violated the Secret Agreement under which I'm entitled to win! UR NOT DOIN IT RIGHT!"
If Mary Sue Whipple were here, we could ask her to have a go at recreating the dialogue Fiji imagined would follow from his initial post; but alas, she has better things to do these days.
TNH:
But Fiji is perfectly entitled to win the argument! I even explained how to do so in the third paragraph of comment 85. It's a surefire recipe for success.
Oh...wait. Win without deserving it. Right.
Bugger that for a game of toy soldiers.
Comments on Obeying the Law is for Wimps: