Earlier this week Sarah Palin, acting as governor, took out an ethics complaint against herself. She then asked the personnel board to investigate charges that she had abused her office in the “Troopergate” affair. Since the personnel board has jurisdiction, she argued further, then the state Legislature’s probe would have to be shut down.
The personnel board is appointed by the governor, though the three currently serving were named by Palin’s Republican predecessor, Frank Murkowski, whom she defeated in a hard-fought primary in 2006. But it’s not quite that arm’s-length; Palin reappointed one of them, Debra English, and English now chairs the board.
Looks like the Alaska Legislature is not going to roll over, though, for the moment at least, Palin has escaped being subpoenaed.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Isn’t doing that just a tad unethical? 😉
I wish some of this would stick, but it just doesn’t when you have the right bloc acting as if it’s some sexist move on the part of a hypocritical left wing press.I know, I know, it was an injustice when the Inquirer story about John Edwards was not covered by the press, but now, all of Palin’s garbage is off limits.Besides, it’s not Obama v. Palin. It’s Obama v McCain. The sooner the DNC shifts away from her the better.
the_bunk: Name the left-wing media member. Limbaugh? Savage? Buchanan? Novack? The Wall Street Journal editorial page? The Chicago Tribune, whose editor said the only way that paper would ever endorse a Democrat is if the Republican was a pederast? Any Rupert Murdoch paper? Any Conrad Black paper? Shall I continue?
mike_b1: shall you continue what? I have no idea what you just did other than list a bunch of conservative outlets.read my post before you respond. i was saying that no story about her is going to have traction. people like her and it matters not one whit what comes out about her.the best thing that Obama can do is redouble his efforts on McCain.what part about that was not apparent? the right is saying that cnn, huffingtonpost, olberman, et al are trying to tear her down.please read more carefully next time.
I love it when it’s said “she even took on Republicans.” It’s a members only club up there, she’d have to, to take on anybody. Is she backing–indicted– Sen.Stevens for re-election, an easy question: Yes or No Sarah?
the_bunk: the point is there is no left wing media. And that’s why none of it will stick. It has nothing to do with the right political bloc, and everything to do with the right media.
I have to wonder how much of the perceived ‘gentleness’ of the media is just due to the fact that they were caught as flat-footed as everyone else by Palin’s nomination. How many news organizations HAD anyone in Alaska? If the shenanigans going on in Palin’s church (a talk by the leader of Jews for Jesus, a ‘Pray Away the Gay’ conference about “converting homosexuals through the power of prayer”) were taking place in a church in Atlanta or Dallas instead of a small, tight-lipped town at the back end of nowhere, the media circus would be INSANE. 2000-chimpanzees-armed-with-tasers insane.
You want to see media bias? Look to see how the “Democrats trashed the American flag” story spreads. It’s a complete canard, spread by Fox News. Already debunked. But watch how it spreads.I think it was Aaron who remarked that the Democrats just need to learn to start spreading lies, since that’s what Republicans always do. The difference is, the Republicans have a network like Fox that doesn’t care too much about accuracy and will keep repeating the lie. Contrast that with the Rather TANG story – it was knocked down almost immediately and CBS retracted.Fox just doesn’t care.
Apparently, Gov. Palin doesn’t understand the simple concept of separation of powers. The existence of an executive branch investigation can not and will not thwart a legislative branch inquiry.She is dumber than I thought.
I think it was Aaron who remarked that the Democrats just need to learn to start spreading lies, since that’s what Republicans always do. The difference is, the Republicans have a network like Fox that doesn’t care too much about accuracy and will keep repeating the lie.Yes, that was me. And despite what many on the right like to think, NPR is hardly a “reliable shill for the left” like how Fox News is most definitely a reliable shill for the right.Granted, there is Pacifica, which is most definitely a shill for the left…but it’s too disorganized to stay on any one message for long, and it doesn’t reach even a fraction of the audience Fox News does.One thing that, until somewhat recently, the left DID have was newspaper editorial pages. But massive consolidation and downsizing, coupled with far too much cross-ownership between papers and TV/radio, have ended up with reliably-right-leaning owners in charge of many of the major dailies. And that’s overlooking the fact that print media is dying a horrible, slow death as we speak.BTW, Amused, don’t write off Palin as dumb quite yet. She’s not trying to THWART an investigation, merely STALL it long enough to get past the elections.
mike_b1: again, you failed to even come near my point. i don’t really care what you think about media ownership to be honest. i hear your kind yelling in my ear and the cons yelling in my other ear about the nyt op-ed pages. you can have each other, as far as I’m concerned, because you’ll never get a rational point from either of you.the right was trying to make the allegations against clinton stick in the 92 election and it didn’t. people decided they liked him and ignored all the bad stuff. that’s why i said that about palin; they don’t care. if obama wants to win, he should move on and fight mccain; for the third time.
Gimme a break. As much as I liked Clinton, he won in ’92 with 43% of the vote, with Perot picking up 19%. He won because of Perot. Pure and simple.
Mike, from what I remember of the exit polling in ’92, Perot didn’t swing that election. I recall that half the Perot voters said they wouldn’t have voted, and the remainder were 2-1 for Bush. This would not have changed the outcome of any state’s electoral votes.
Steve, while I am aware of some post-election results that back up what you said, what they cannot divine is what would have happened had Perot not run at all. Perot ran against the Bush Administration policies, effectively working as a surrogate to Clinton in that regard. It’s hard to believe that Perot did not influence that election far beyond the exit poll commentary.
Mike, while what you say may be true, there’s no data to back it up, and “it’s hard to believe” isn’t data. You may be right, but I don’t buy it.
Well, we do know negative advertising works, and that’s what Perot did in spades in ’92. And Bush was his target.
mike_b1: Clinton’s likability had nothing to do with his own victory? It was all Perot’s doing? That’s a stretch.By that logic, anyone could have walked up and beat Bush. I’m not saying he didn’t have help, but Clinton’s personality had a lot to do with the allegations against him.I’m saying the same thing about Palin. People like her, so they’re going to cruise over the details.You really like diverting a point to serve your fancy don’t you?
Clinton’s likability had very little to do with his victory in 1992. Bush’s unlikability had everything to do with it, coupled with the simple line: “It’s the economy, stupid.”Remember, Perot’s entire campaign rested on the idea that he, and only he, had the competency to fix the economy. And he actually led the race as late as June (with Clinton in 3d, I might add).In the 92 election, some 36% of voters were listed as Republicans, 26% as Independents, and 39% as Democrats.In the end, Clinton essentially won the Dem vote and a few points of the rest. Bush’s totals among GOP and moderate/conservative independents were sharply lower than those of Bush in ’88 and Dole in ’96. (Clinton saw a 4 point bounce among liberal independents in ’96, but that group made up only 4% of the ’92 electorate. Among conservative independents — 7% of the electorate — Clinton went up 2 points in ’96; Dole scored 7 points better than Bush). Perot beat Clinton by six to 13 points in every Republican voter segment, and Bush beat Perot by 7 points among conservative Democrats.Here’s some analysis on it which concludes that Clinton would have still won, but in a tight race: http://tinyurl.com/5hst6cIn 1992, Clinton controlled the media and simplified the message. And, the economy sucked. If voters liked him so much, he would have won more than 43% of the vote. It was by far the lowest winning percentage ever by a US president. It’s a huge stretch to say people like Palin. No one knows her. Give her a few weeks.