I can only imagine...

[MJZiggy]

Hmmm...so far it's been one Obama supporter seemingly who apparently wrote the finding himself with no influence of anyone on the commission, an attack on the report and I'm seeing either 6 or 8 posts before the "political foe out to get her" excuse depending on how you look at it...

[SkinBasket]

Uhhh... Wut?

[MJZiggy]

Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.

[texaspackerbacker]

I ask again, Ziggy, WHAT exactly do you see that Palin did that was wrong?

[SkinBasket]

Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.

Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.

[MJZiggy]

Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.

Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.

If there's nothing to excuse, then why was the decision unanimous that there IS something to excuse on Palin's side? You just simply won't allow it to be stated that maybe your poor innocent abused Sarah may have done something even inappropriate. Come on, say it. She fucked up.

Tex, she fucked up when she tried to get a trooper fired for personal reasons after the commission decided that he'd done nothing to get fired for, and then she threatened to fire the guy that led the investigation.

His actual firing is what triggered the inquiry, but wasn't the actual abuse. It was using the public trust for personal gain.

[mraynrand]

Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.

Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.

What she tried to do was what libs constantly do: set the parameters of the debate so as to only favor their point of view. Zig initially asks 'what excuses' she will see in response to her baiting thread, as though what happened was certainly, unquestionably wrong and can only be excused - Zig didn't start with a proposition such as "Are these findings valid?" or "What is the impact of these findings?" Zig, the way you phrased you query can only lead to a defensive posture by anyone who doesn't agree with the findings. Did you go to law school?

[texaspackerbacker]

Read the first post, dear, then read the thread. The first post ponders what excuses will show up and how soon.

Yeah, I read it. There's nothing to excuse on Palin's side. Your labeling people's explanations and discussion as "excuses" is a bit dismissive and closed minded on the matter though.

If there's nothing to excuse, then why was the decision unanimous that there IS something to excuse on Palin's side? You just simply won't allow it to be stated that maybe your poor innocent abused Sarah may have done something even inappropriate. Come on, say it. She fucked up.

Tex, she fucked up when she tried to get a trooper fired for personal reasons after the commission decided that he'd done nothing to get fired for, and then she threatened to fire the guy that led the investigation.

His actual firing is what triggered the inquiry, but wasn't the actual abuse. It was using the public trust for personal gain.

Did she say to the state commissioner "you will be fired if you don't fire him"? She isn't even accused of that. Short of that, WHAT DID SHE DO WRONG? Suggesting the should be fired/inquiring whether he had been fired or why not? Where do you see a crime (as you stated it was) or even an ethics violation or even a moral wrong?

And as for doing "nothing to be fired", the guy used a stun gun--presumably a service weapon--on a child. You don't see that as worthy of being fired?

You KNOW if Palin was a Dem/lib, you'd be defending her all the way. How HYPOCRITICAL!

[mraynrand]

Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

[MJZiggy]

No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood, whom I admittedly REALLY don't like. I knew that the first thing you'd do was try to take a UNANIMOUS and BIPARTISAN finding and invalidate it to suggest that she did nothing wrong. What real reason is there to question the finding? It's a republican lynch mob out to get her? The dems voted right with the republican. They wanted to ruin her chances at getting elected VP? Isn't Alaska a red state? Also, don't you think they'd take it as a point of pride that an Alaskan was working in the Executive Offices? I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.

[mraynrand]

MORE EXCUSES: Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

[mraynrand]

No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.

Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

[MJZiggy]

No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.

Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

That is not the basis of the determination of abuse of power. Her trying to force the firing of her ex brother-in-law for personal reasons is.

[texaspackerbacker]

No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.

Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

That is not the basis of the determination of abuse of power. Her trying to force the firing of her ex brother-in-law for personal reasons is.

She did NOT force or try to the firing of the guy. She merely suggested/inquired. Did your article or the commission even accuse her of any more than that? I say AGAIN, she had the moral high ground--could you possibly say otherwise?--and she did nothing more than proper and appropriate communication with the supervisor who should have fired the guy. Could you possibly claim otherwise?

[MJZiggy]

No, but I'm looking at a bipartisan group of people that found unanimously against your poster child for victimhood I'm just watching as you folks are doing anything you possibly can to not have to admit even the POSSIBILITY that she might have done something wrong. Which this commission seems to think she did.

Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads.

That is not the basis of the determination of abuse of power. Her trying to force the firing of her ex brother-in-law for personal reasons is.

She did NOT force or try to the firing of the guy. She merely suggested/inquired. Did your article or the commission even accuse her of any more than that? I say AGAIN, she had the moral high ground--could you possibly say otherwise?--and she did nothing more than proper and appropriate communication with the supervisor who should have fired the guy. Could you possibly claim otherwise?

She told the safety commissioner that if he didn't fire her ex b-i-l, she was going to fire him. It's not about the moral high ground, it's about the public trust. If he was a horrible guy, too bad. If he did horrid things, he should have been arrested, not fired. There are plenty of law enforcement officials out there who do their job fine but have screwed up personal lives. They should not be fired for that, but when they do things that break the law, they need to be arrested, not fired. If their arrest leads to their firing sobeit, but you can't skip the arrest part. If he did something to be arrested for, fine. Do it. If he didn't, you don't use the governors office to make him go away. This is government, not the mafia.