from those Commies at the Anchorage Daily News and the Republican majority (14 – 6) on the Alaska Legislative Council:
An investigation has concluded that Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, according to a report just now unanimously released by the legislative council.
The report by investigator Steve Branchflower found that Palin violated the state’s executive branch ethics act, which says that “each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”
Branchflower was investigating whether Palin abused her power by pushing for the firing of state trooper Mike Wooten, who once was married to the governor’s sister.
The full report is here.
So according to the report she didn’t do anything unethical in firing the commissioner, but pushing to have the cop fired was unethical because they concluded it was done for personal reasons.By all accounts I’ve seen the trooper was a bad cop who deserved to be fired. Sounds like a slap on the wrist type of ethics violation.
but pushing to have the cop fired was unethical because they concluded it was done for personal reasons.And this you trivialize. Ah, it wasn’t “the cop.” It was her ex-brother-in-law.Do you really need someone to tell you that this is serious, or are you so blinded by your own partisanship that “anything goes” if your ox [caribou] is the one being gored?Pathetic!
“it wasn’t “the cop.” It was her ex-brother-in-law.”Who was a cop, right?”Do you really need someone to tell you that this is serious”It doesn’t sound serious. So yes, I do need to have someone explain why it’s serious — since it appears to be pretty trivial. It looks like something worthy of a mild censure.
“or are you so blinded by your own partisanship”Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I’m not that big of a fan of Palin. I’m not a social conservative, and she’s obviously a lightweight on most issues that I care about. Her main positive for me is that she drives the left insane. I’m not defending her out of any particular partisanship. It just appears that this is a minor ethics violation.
David,I appreciate your reasonableness, but think it falls a bit short. Two months ago I didn’t hate Sarah Palin or anything. I knew she was governor of Alaska, and that was fine.But she is manifestly unqualified to be President. To sympathize with her because she annoys people like me is a bit much. That is, she’s still not qualified.
So yes, I do need to have someone explain why it’s serious — since it appears to be pretty trivial. It looks like something worthy of a mild censure.The ethical standard you set for people in public office is no standard at all, really. As with so many other sleazy and illegal things the Bush Administration has done, here it seems to me you fatally confuse perceptions of political impact — do they have the power to get away with it, in which case it’s “OK” — with basic questions of whether the conduct is proper and lawful.In this case you’re off on both counts. There’s no way this looks good because it isn’t. I’m curious. Are you one of the people who argued that Clinton perjuring himself in a deposition wasn’t important because it was “just about sex”?
Stephen,"But she is manifestly unqualified to be President."I would call her underqualified, not unqualified. Being a governor is a normal qualification for the presidency. And again, she's running for vp, not president. I think Obama is underqualified also — especially compared to McCain & Biden."To sympathize with her because she annoys people like me is a bit much."I look at it this way. If she was a liberal with the same level of qualifications running as Obama's vp, pretty much everyone on the left would be fawning over her and attacking all critics as sexist. And with Obama running as the Democratic nominee, I don't think the qualification argument means much this year. So I find all the hostility toward Palin amusing.redhand,"The ethical standard you set for people in public office is no standard at all, really."Did I say she did nothing wrong? What I said was the offense seems pretty trivial."As with so many other sleazy and illegal things the Bush Administration has done"This is getting ridiculous. Again you have to bash Bush on a thread that has nothing to do with him."you fatally confuse perceptions of political impact — do they have the power to get away with it, in which case it's "OK" — with basic questions of whether the conduct is proper and lawful."No, I don't. You seem to not understand that I disagree with you over the extent/severity of violations, and whether or not certain things are even illegal in the first place. I've never argued that politicians should be able to do things if they can get away with them."In this case you're off on both counts. There's no way this looks good because it isn't."Who said it looks good? Saying something is a minor ethics violation doesn't mean I think it's good — just that it's no big deal."I'm curious. Are you one of the people who argued that Clinton perjuring himself in a deposition wasn't important because it was "just about sex"?"No, because I thought that the president blatantly committing perjury was serious. But that's not in any way similar to this. That was an actual violation of the law. The Palin situation is a politician crossing the line ethically. And if you look at the circumstances it just doesn't seem that significant. Again, it seems worthy of a mild censure. Maybe she should issue an apology.
I have always wondered what would happen to the base if a Republican killed a kitten with a hammer on television. I’m thinking that wolf-killin’ power-abusin’ Mooselini may be the closest we get to a real answer to that question.
That was an actual violation of the law. The Palin situation is a politician crossing the line ethically. And if you look at the circumstances it just doesn’t seem that significant.Wow, just wow…Palin violated the ethical standards expected of the Governor of Alaska, which are codified by statute. So, yes, David C, this was an “actual violation of the law” in the same way that Bush’s underlings broke the law in their hiring of immigration judges based on political preferences, in violation of the Civil Service Act (to cite just one example of Bush Administration malfeasance).I don’t consider Palin’s conduct trivial at all. Any time a public official puts his or her personal desires over the larger duty they owe to the public (in this case precisely NOT to do that) they demonstrate their unfitness for office. That’s why the Clinton situation is similar. Committing perjury was not just a criminal violation, but a beach of his oath of office to “take care that the laws are faithfully executed.”Caribou Barbie is an ignoramus with a petty, vindictive streak a mile long. She is manifestly unfit to become US VP, however much she may appeal to the wingnut base of the Republican Party. Your principal defense of her seems to be that you enjoy her candidacy because it drives “leftists” like me “crazy.” I don’t think that is sufficient grounds to dumb down the qualification for the job to the ridiculous “but she’s not running for president” standard you’ve set.
"I don't consider Palin's conduct trivial at all."Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree."Any time a public official puts his or her personal desires over the larger duty they owe to the public"Again, there are degrees. This violation is pretty minor."Caribou Barbie is an ignoramus with a petty, vindictive streak a mile long."Over the top assertions like this greatly reduce the credibility of your argument, and make it appear that you are attacking her primarily on partisan grounds. You've already made up your mind about her, based on pretty much nothing, and therefore you want to read too much into a minor ethics violation."to dumb down the qualification for the job to the ridiculous "but she's not running for president" standard you've set"Well, she isn't running for president. Qualifications for vp have always been pretty low. Vice presidents are usually picked because of campaign strategy, as was Palin. Everyone knows that it's an emergency backup position with minimal responsibilities — unless the president chooses to give the vp more power. Her qualifications aren't great, but she's qualified for vp. I have little doubt that she can adequately represent the U.S. at state funerals and other ceremonial events. And in the unlikely event that she has to take over, she'll have the whole cabinet & advisory apparatus of the presidency to assist her.
I can see where DavidC is coming from. After swallowing the crimes of the Bush/Cheney administration for the past eight years, the crimes of Sarah Palin, which would stink in the nostrils of any decent society, simply don’t add up to much.Maybe he will rediscover the notion morality in civil servants when Obama is elected.
bhcanuckistani,If you are actually serious, which I doubt, you appear to have a pretty loose definition of what “crimes” are. Since Palin hasn’t committed any, unless you consider a minor ethics violation a crime, I’m not sure what you are even talking about. Policy differences aren’t crimes either. “Maybe he will rediscover the notion morality in civil servants when Obama is elected.”I’ll judge Obama by the same standards I apply to other politicans, in the unfortunate event that he becomes president.
Her qualifications aren't great, but she's qualified for vp. I have little doubt that she can adequately represent the U.S. at state funerals and other ceremonial events. And in the unlikely event that she has to take over, she'll have the whole cabinet & advisory apparatus of the presidency to assist her.Absolutely priceless! * * * Beyond parody! I have no riposte that better makes the case why she’s not a serious VP candidate.
“Absolutely priceless! * * * Beyond parody!”I’ll translate that: But, but, I hate Palin and it’s so obvious that she’s an evil idiot Republican and unqualified to be vice president. I’m shocked and horrified that a Republican doesn’t agree with my views that I formed by reading rumors and lies on left-wing sites. He’s actually bringing up facts about the historical role, responsibilities and qualifications of vice presidents. Why can’t he just see that she’s pure evil? Like Bush! I think that about sums it up.
David, the main reason LBJ sucked is that he never cared about foreign policy in the first place, and let JFK’s advisors run his Vietnam policy while we was focusing on domestic issues. A Palin presidency will differ from LBJ’s only in that Palin won’t try to pass civil rights legislation or have any concern with poverty.As for “unfortunate event,” it increasingly looks like the only way McCain even has a shot at winning is if there’s a major terrorist attack on US soil before the election, or if Obama gets assassinated. Neither is something you should wish for.
Alon,I'm not sure how you make a comparison between Palin & LBJ based on the idea that they are both interested in domestic issues. LBJ had a long record in Congress before becoming president. Palin is young and most of her positions on national & international affairs seem to be in the formative stage. (I think that's true of Obama on some issues as well). I don't think anyone can reasonably predict what kind of president she'd be."it increasingly looks like the only way McCain even has a shot at winning is if there's a major terrorist attack on US soil before the election, or if Obama gets assassinated."I think McCain's chances are bad, but not quite that bad. There's still one debate to go, and you never know what could happen otherwise between now and the election. I'm keeping hope alive :)."Neither is something you should wish for."I don't. Either event would be a disaster for the U.S.
DavidC:Your last response was pretty weak. Sometimes it’s best to quit while you’re behind.I wouldn’t say that I “hate” Palin, nor do I think you do yourself any service by suggesting that those who find her conduct contemptible are themselves necessarily “delusional.” Demonization never does much for discourse, though it’s hard to resist when it’s your target’s (Palin, not you) prime weapon. I do think Sarah is a prime target for mockery, a classic small time politico waaaaaaay out of her league. And her campaign tactics are despicable. Frank Rich gets its right in a piece in the NYT this morning:”What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.”Meanwhile, her CYA efforts in response to the Troopergate report findings are bizarre: absolute denial. She’s actually claiming on Alaska radio that she was “cleared of any legal wrongdoing or unethical activity at all.” Read the transcript of her statements over at Mudflats, where you can also link to the audio if you doubt the transcription. I’m wondering if Caribou Barbie would attack you if she knew that you had characterized her violations as “trivial.” We see that in Palin-world she’s completely innocent.As I said before, sometimes it’s best to quit when you’re behind.I want this election over with. The polls indicate Obama’s going to win by a landslide, and deservedly so. Let Sarah go back to Alaska and try to salvage what she can of her tattered reputation and political career. But, get the hook! Get her off the national stage! She’s a national embarassment.
She’s a national embarassment.True that. After she was nominated, I was hanging around with some friends, some of whom are violently right-wing, at least by Canadian standards. We had a good long argument about her character, motives and qualifications.We met again on Friday night, and this time there was no support for her at all. Everyone, right and left, was in agreement that she is a joke of a candidate, and a sign that your country is in deep s**t if she’s the best VP candidate you could dredge up.All my foreign friends* I’ve been in contact with are laughing too. Although we have not reached consensus about whether “Caribou Barbie”, “Mooselini” or “Bible Spice” is the best epithet, we are all holding our stomachs and laughing at the United States of America.*My brother-in-law is French. He is laughing. That’s a bit of extra salt for the wounds for those French-haters out there.
redhand,"Your last response was pretty weak. Sometimes it's best to quit while you're behind."Hmm, I thought it was pretty much on the mark.This response by you is much more reasonable. I just disagree with much of it." And her campaign tactics are despicable."Again, I've seen nothing that could be reasonably characterized as "despicable." And Frank Rich is not exactly an unbiased observer."Meanwhile, her CYA efforts in response to the Troopergate report findings are bizarre: absolute denial"Well, I agree with you that her denial is pretty weak. But I don't think it's bizarre. Politicians often refuse to admit wrongdoing, especially when they are accused of something where the evidence is based on a judgment call."I'm wondering if Caribou Barbie would attack you"Possibly, I'm not part of her wing of the party, and I don't think a massive attack on Obama's associations is a winning strategy at this point — although I'm not sure what is."The polls indicate Obama's going to win by a landslide"I seriously doubt that. I think it will be close — but that may just be wishful thinking on my part."She's a national embarassment."Only if you accept the left's view of her, which I don't. It's mostly based on anti-religious bigotry & stereotypes. Just read anything canuckistani has to say about Palin for a good example.
I'm not sure how you make a comparison between Palin & LBJ based on the idea that they are both interested in domestic issues.My comparison is meant mostly as a response to your claim that Palin could do a reasonable job if needed, because of the help of McCain’s advisors."She's a national embarassment."Only if you accept the left's view of her, which I don't. It's mostly based on anti-religious bigotry & stereotypes. Just read anything canuckistani has to say about Palin for a good example.It’s not just the left. Sam Harris and Gloria Steinem’s articles about her actually made me sympathize with her. Then I read what Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, and several other conservative pundits had to say about her. They are as embarrassed as any liberal. And, I’m sorry, but Palin’s answers to Katie Couric are worse than if Couric had interviewed Tina Fey by mistake.
This response by you is much more reasonable.Before you think I’m too reasonable realize how much I appreciate this assessment of Palin from John Cole, my favorite ex-Republican: Who could have imagined that if you take an ethically challenged know-nothing religious nut from backwoods America, have Bill Kristol and the Rove 2000 team whisper in her ear for weeks, that she would turn into a vicious political opportunist with no regard for the country and an eye on her personal future?Most vetted candidate ever.I share Cole's bitterness. The downfall of the Reagan Republican Party can be laid at the feet of: (1) the ultimately polarizing and corrosive influence of the know-nothing religious right in the Party, as reflected in the absurd Terry Schaivo federal legislation; (2) the sorry-ass breach of the 1992 "Contract with America" by self-dealing scumbags like Tom Delay and (others too numerous to name) who showed that Republican control of Congress was not, as promised, a change in the way business was done in D.C. but just a set of different hogs at the trough; and (3) the Bush Administration, the mere mention of which is sufficient without derogatory epithets.There will, of course, always be corruption in Washington. The lure of easy money (think Rick Davis's company getting $15K/month for nothing from Fannie Mae while serving as McMaverick's campaign manager) always attracts the corrupt like sh*t attracts flies. I think the GOP is a truly spent force now, and that it's time to give the Demos another chance to lead with veto-proof majorities in Congress. The time is right, too, for correcting the enormous disparity in the income of the "capitalist elites" and "ordinary Americans" (yes they do exist outside of Palin-world) especially since the former have shown they can no more be trusted with the "self-regulating" American economy than Bush & Co. can be trusted with the conduct of American foreign policy.
" And, I'm sorry, but Palin's answers to Katie Couric"I agree that she did a horrible job in that interview. But I don't read that much into it."this assessment of Palin from John Cole"Needless to say, I don't think much of Cole, and garbage like that is a prime example. His assessment is based on the anti-religious bigotry and caricatured views I mentioned before. I can get that kind of "analysis" from any garden-variety leftist."The downfall of the Reagan Republican Party"I can't really disagree with your argument here. I would put most of the blame squarely on Bush, who in the process of being a two term president, has managed to be a total disaster for the Republican party."There will, of course, always be corruption in Washington."On both sides, despite your partisan example. If anything there is more on the Democratic side, and that's certainly true if you are talking about Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac."I think the GOP is a truly spent force now"Only for the moment. The reality of having Democrats in control is almost certain to cause a shift back toward the GOP in the future. Especially since Democrats will no doubt overreach, if as expected they win big."it's time to give the Demos another chance to lead with veto-proof majorities in Congress."Yeah, because we need to replace bad with worse. I think Obama can do enough damage with control of Congress, let alone total control. I don't want either party having complete dominance — which is one of the best reasons to vote for McCain. Divided government can do less harm. "The time is right, too, for correcting the enormous disparity in the income of the "capitalist elites" and "ordinary Americans""No, it most certainly isn't. The last thing we need is even more socialism. I'm not sure why anyone who claims to have been a Reagan Republican would be in favor of socialist redistribution by force."the "self-regulating" American economy"The U.S. economy hasn't been anywhere near being "self-regulating" since before the 1930s. We have way too much government interference with the economy, not too little. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just two of many examples.I can understand being disgusted with the GOP and voting for Obama to punish them, or even just for change — although I think it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. But I can't understand why people, who claim to have been Republicans, would abandon all their previous principles and embrace the left.
First, Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a relatively small and decreasing proportion of subprime mortgage lending by the mid-2000s.Second, I’d say the downfall of Reagan Republicanism goes deeper than just Bush. From the start, it was a movement based on a backlash to the values of the 1960s and 70s. In the 1980s and even the 90s, rhetoric related to 1960s ideas, like concerns about welfare, sexual licentiousness, and crime, could resonate. There was also relatively little history of Reaganite rule and none of the modern GOP controlling all branches of government, making conservatism look fresh. Then the GOP took over all branches of government and the entire movement collapsed.The Democrats demonized Hoover for decades after the 1930s, and it worked while they could plausibly claim to be better. The Republican attacks on tax and spend liberals and on blue culture are no more current now than the Democratic attacks on robber baron capitalism were in the 1970s.
"First, Fannie and Freddie were responsible for a relatively small and decreasing proportion of subprime mortgage lending by the mid-2000s."They had a major role in the entire secondary mortgage market, not just subprime." The Republican attacks on tax and spend liberals and on blue culture are no more current now"Sure they are. The culture war attacks are just trumped by other issues — the economy — at the moment, and also because McCain isn't a culture warrior. Republican attacks on spending aren't effective right now because the Bush administration's out of control spending undercut the message. It's kind of difficult to argue against spending, when your own administration is a huge problem in that regard. Being anti-tax is as popular and effective as ever. Even Obama has been pretending to be anti-tax for the middle class. It is less effective for Republicans at the moment because Democrats haven't been in power to raise taxes. Attacks on tax & spend liberals will likely be highly effective after a couple years of the Obama administration & Democratic controlled Congress.
We have way too much government interference with the economy, not too little.You’ll have a hard time convincing anybody of this given the current financial crisis and its root cause, which was Wall Street (Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc.) marketing classes of real-estate-based financial products so complex it was hard to see they were garbage, and getting the world economy to buy into them.Your notion that there is “too much” regulation (and apparently has been since the 1930s) is antediluvian. Seriously, you must think The New Deal was a bad thing, since you appear so opposed to the government keeping Adam Smith’s hidden hand out of the cookie jar. You strike me as someone who prefers a capitalism model that worked in the late 19th Century.I am reminded that The Great Depression was sparked by a Wall Street Crash due to unregulated trading on margin.But I can’t understand why people, who claim to have been Republicans, would abandon all their previous principles and embrace the left.The main reason I was Republican was the Democratic retreat from the Cold War after Vietnam, as well as the retreat from Vietnam itself. Instead of realizing that one had to pick battles in that long term conflict, they became completely defeatist after Tet.The 70s was a disaster in Cold War terms, largely due to people like Jimmy Peanut. Of course I cheered Reagan’s victory over the USSR in the 1980s, and thought Bush ’41 got it right in the Gulf War.So going into the 90s I felt only one party could be trusted with national security.Needless to say, that same Republican Party has been a complete national security and foreign policy disaster in the new century.It’s time to give the Demos a new chance here. I honestly doubt they could do worse than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
redhand,Wall street actions are only one part of a picture that includes government promotion of subprime lending & home ownership, market to market accounting rules, the policies of the Federal Reserve, etc., not to mention the whole housing bubble itself. Bubbles almost always burst, and when they do, anything riding on them comes tumbling down."Your notion that there is "too much" regulation (and apparently has been since the 1930s) is antediluvian."You might want to try reading something other than just liberal economic critiques. That's a legitimate school of thought, but it's only one side of the argument. Look at the economic articles regarding the bailout/financial crisis at the libertarian Cato Institute. Our economy is shackled by a bewildering array of regulation, some of which increased during the Bush administration."Seriously, you must think The New Deal was a bad thing."In many respects, yes. And again, that's not exactly a radical position if you are at all familiar with free market economic thought."I am reminded that The Great Depression was sparked by a Wall Street Crash due to unregulated trading on margin."That's an extremely simplistic over generalization. There was no one overriding cause of the Great Depression. It was a combination of many factors. If there is one thing I learned getting my history degrees, it was that major historical events almost always have complex, multifaceted causes, which can rarely be reduced to a single easy explanation.It sounds like you were only a national security Republican and basically always more of a Democrat on economic issues. Would you consider yourself a Reagan Democrat? "Needless to say, that same Republican Party has been a complete national security and foreign policy disaster in the new century."Obviously I strongly disagree that anything constitutes a disaster, despite Bush's mismanagement & outright incompetence. But I'd rather not rehash that, since I know we see things very differently in that area."It's time to give the Demos a new chance here. I honestly doubt they could do worse than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld."I can understand you thinking that way — given your view of the Bush administration, but I'm pretty certain they can do worse. I hope I'm wrong. At this point I see Obama as a dangerously naive liberal when it comes to foreign policy. Normally I would be extremely worried having him in charge of foreign affairs, but given the current situation, I am actually much more concerned about the impact of his domestic policies in conjunction with Congressional Democrats.
if you are at all familiar with free market economic thought.”I am reminded that The Great Depression was sparked by a Wall Street Crash due to unregulated trading on margin.”That’s an extremely simplistic over generalization.I don’t pretend to be an expert on economics, but I suspect the “free market economic thought” you reference is little more than classical Adam Smith economic theory having little relation to the real world — utils anyone?I see regulation as essential to curb the worst excesses of the “free market.” Without it this country’s free market economies would probably be like China’s, with its grotesque pollution, tainted food, and poisonous toys.Stock manipulation and profiteering based on non-transparent markets are another endemic evil of unregulated capitalism. Of course, insider trading and investor fraud will always be with us, but I’d rather have Government enforcers of minimal standards than no standards at all.As for the Great depression, my use of the word “sparked” was intentional.Finally, I expect you are right that I was a “national defense Republican.” However, that part of the Republican credo is ashes now.Also, you shouldn’t be so hard on John Cole (not that he can’t take care of himself!) Remember, he voted for Bush twice, whereas I boycotted the elections. So you shouldn’t be surprised if he’s especially bitter about what his votes helped create.
" but I suspect the "free market economic thought" you reference is little more than classical Adam Smith economic theory having little relation to the real world "No, I'm not talking about anarcho-capitialists. The people at Cato & other free market think tanks are well grounded in modern economics. And even the more extreme lasseiz faire types rely more on Hayek than going all the way back to Smith."I see regulation as essential to curb the worst excesses of the "free market.""I'm not against all regulation, and neither are most free market economists. At a minimum, the government is necessary to prevent/punish fraud & other illegal behavior, and arbitrate disputes. And in my opinion, there are many other areas where some government involvement is beneficial. But regulation can also be ineffective or outright harmful."As for the Great depression, my use of the word "sparked" "Sorry, I missed that. People advancing single cause explanations for major historical events is a personal pet peeve of mine. I jumped on it without realizing you had qualified it.
By all accounts I’ve seen the trooper was a bad cop who deserved to be fired. – davidcAccording to unsubstantiated claims made by members of the Palin & Heath familes – who all have personal reasons to lie.Face it David – the guy is no saint but his biggest "crime" was publicly humiliating Sarah's sister by cheating on her in a small town so that everyone knew that her husband was doing someone else. After that Sarah Palin charged him with a few things he actually did (like illegally shooting a moose … which Sarah and Todd Palin helped him butcher and eat and only reported him for 2 years later after the divorce) and a whole bunch of stuff that she made up. I've seen messy divorces and God forbid you ever get divorced and have people judge you entirely on the words of your ex-wife and her kin.
todd,"According to unsubstantiated claims made by members of the Palin & Heath familes"Nonsense. The evidence that he was a bad cop comes from his record. He was clearly a problem, and was disciplined by the department, as the record plainly shows. I agree that Palin was over the line ethically because of her position as governor, but trying to pretend she didn't have good cause is just ridiculous."I've seen messy divorces and God forbid you ever get divorced and have people judge you entirely on the words of your ex-wife and her kin."Except that what you are suggesting with regard to Wooten is irrelevant. The fact that Palin may have had personal issues with him, beyond those regarding his behavior as a cop, doesn't mean she was wrong in wanting him fired.You can throw out everything that you think was made up — a judgment you've made with no evidence, since you don't have the slightest idea whether or not those accusations are true. Everyone is apparently in agreement that he tasered his 11 year old stepson, drank on duty, and made a death threat against his father-in-law. Those three things alone are more than enough to justify wanting him fired. I'd want him fired too, and so would most people. Unfortunately there's nothing unusual about cops like this being protected by the police union.
Look at the economic articles regarding the bailout/financial crisis at the libertarian Cato Institute.Who cares what they think? Serious economic thought is generated on the pages of peer-reviewed journals and in conferences. They’re not generated at thinktanks where people are paid to advance an ideology. I’ve seen what places like Cato and Brookings put out, and it’s garbage with made up numbers and shallow analysis.If I want to know what libertarian economists think of something, I’ll read Friedman and Mankiw. And similarly, if I want to know what liberal economists think, I’ll read Krugman and Stiglitz.
“Who cares what they think? ” They’re not generated at thinktanks where people are paid to advance an ideology. I’ve seen what places like Cato and Brookings put out, and it’s garbage with made up numbers and shallow analysis.”That attitude is just silly. Yeah, everything at a think tank comes from “made up numbers.” Having an ideology behind an analysis doesn’t make one’s analysis “shallow.” The economists you cited all have ideological outlooks too. And think tank sites often link articles that aren’t necessarily put out by their own members.I didn’t say believe everything you read at Cato, I recommended it as a good place to find free market economic arguments — which it is.
I agree that Palin was over the line ethically because of her position as governor, but trying to pretend she didn’t have good cause is just ridiculous.Strong non-sequitur elements here. Precisely because she was Governor, she had a legal and ethical duty to back off, and no basis whatsoever to preside over a government-backed vendetta against an ex-relative. “Good cause” my ass. The crap she (and her unelected husband through her) pulled using government influence is outrageous.I don’t understand why you give this vicious harpie every benefit of the doubt when it comes to the blatent breaches of ethical standards she was found guilty of. Her conduct is disgusting, and inexcusable. And where’s the outrage over the fact that she’s lying her ass off (or downright delusional) by claiming that the report cleared her, when in fact it did the exact opposite? There’s no way her words are “spin.” They are a absolute lie.Despite this you persist in defending Palin, and thereby suggesting that such a person is psychologically fit to run for VP.
That attitude is just silly. Yeah, everything at a think tank comes from “made up numbers.” Having an ideology behind an analysis doesn’t make one’s analysis “shallow.” The economists you cited all have ideological outlooks too. And think tank sites often link articles that aren’t necessarily put out by their own members.Economists may be biased, but they have to publish their results in peer-reviewed journals and submit their work to criticism by other experts. Think tanks don’t have any such control mechanism, so they often don’t cite their sources, and when they do, their sources generally don’t check out – at least they haven’t whenever I tried.For example: the Tax Foundation claims that the tax imbalances various states run with the federal government is a product of progressive taxation rather than different spending levels, and prescribes flat taxes as the solution. In fact, if you look at data on federal spending per capita in each state, you see that most tax donor states pay above average taxes and get below average spending, and most tax recipient states pay below average taxes and get above average spending.For another example: Brookings has various studies on taxes. Not surprisingly, they conclude Democratic proposals to increase taxes on the very rich are sound and will generate a lot of revenue. In one study they actually go and say, without any reference, that it’ll generate $100 billion a year; the actual number, according to Census Bureau income data, is about $21 billion.There are several more examples I could give you of either shoddy numbers passed as fact in think tanks, or analysis that says the exact opposite of what academic experts of several different disciplines believe.
redhand,”Strong non-sequitur elements here”Not hardly. Someone can have a good reason for doing the wrong thing, or can do the right thing in the wrong way.”The crap she (and her unelected husband through her) pulled using government influence is outrageous.”Far from outrageous it was pretty minor. There would have been something wrong with them if they hadn’t wanted that cop fired. That doesn’t mean they should have misused the authority of the governor’s office, but their actions are understandable.”Her conduct is disgusting, and inexcusable.”I disagree. I find it a minor ethical breach for which she had good reasons. And she didn’t even succeed in getting him fired, so the amount of pressure she brought to bear was pretty limited.”And where’s the outrage over the fact that she’s lying her ass off (or downright delusional) by claiming that the report cleared her, when in fact it did the exact opposite? There’s no way her words are “spin.” They are a absolute lie.”I don’t get outraged over politicians lying. They do it all the time. It’s nothing suprising. I guess she’s claiming it cleared her because it cleared her of one charge, and she’s conveniently ignoring the rest.”I don’t understand why you give this vicious harpie every benefit of the doubt”Because I think your view of her as a “vicious harpie” is based on nothing more than partisanship. It’s about as accurate as her description of Obama as a guy that pals around with terrorists. I think she went over the line with her actions, but I just don’t think it was a big deal in any way.”Despite this you persist in defending Palin, and thereby suggesting that such a person is psychologically fit to run for VP.”I’m defending her as a matter of degree, against what I view as exaggerations combined with unfounded suppositions.”thereby suggesting that such a person is psychologically fit to run for VP.”I have no idea of her pyschological fitness for anything. I just don’t read all kinds of stuff into this incident. Unless an identical set of circumstances were to arise once she was vp — highly unlikely — I’m not sure how a family-related situation in Alaska is all that relevant.
Alon,I’m not talking about pure economic theory, but economics as an aspect of public policy — something which think tanks specifically focus on. The context for this was a reaction to people advancing explanations for the financial crisis that were based on left-wing/government interventionist perspectives. Therefore I suggested looking at Cato for a good example of different perspectives and arguments based on free market thinking. You can quickly get a good idea about views of the financial crisis. It’s not necessary to go wade thru academic articles on economics to do so.And Cato is much different than Brookings in that it is independent of both parties. Brookings is usually associated with the Democratic party, and its main counterpoint on the right is Heritage.
And Cato is much different than Brookings in that it is independent of both parties.Not really. Almost all it talks about is economics, on which it mostly agrees with the Republicans. Occasionally it also releases studies or promotes books supporting isolationist foreign policy, but mostly it’s as Republican as Milton Friedman, only without the knowledge.As for popular responses, I’ve just found a 1997 article by Paul Krugman about how Cato is colluding with total cranks to combine its ideas of the free market with “new economy” buzz. The institute’s popular response to the biotech boom, apparently, was to trumpet some woo-filled book about evolutionary biology and economics that got both completely wrong.
“Not really. Almost all it talks about is economics, on which it mostly agrees with the Republicans.”I don’t think you’ve read much from the Cato Institute. It’s highly critical of Republicans all the time. It’s closer to Republicans on economics, because libertarians tend to be closer to Republicans than Democrats on most economic issues.
Everyone is apparently in agreement that he tasered his 11 year old stepson, drank on duty, and made a death threat against his father-in-law.No David, at the very least the “death threats” are completely unsupported by anyone outside the Palin family. If you can find a single reference to an independent witness then let me know, but everything I’ve read – including Palins own email – lists only Palins and Heaths as witnesses to his “violent” behavior.The Palins are like the Kennedys but with less education and less credibility. That is saying something.
“No David, at the very least the “death threats” are completely unsupported by anyone outside the Palin family.”More bs. The investigation in 2005 found that he had made such a threat, as reported by the Anchorage Daily News”Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both” One was the death threat.and”The record clearly indicates a serious and concentrated pattern of unacceptable and at times, illegal activity occurring over a lengthy period, which establishes a course of conduct totally at odds with the ethics of our profession,” Col. Julia Grimes, then head of Alaska State Troopers, wrote in March 1, 2006, letter suspending Wooten for 10 days”The guy was a bad cop. It wasn’t just Palin that thought so.”The Palins are like the Kennedys but with less education and less credibility. That is saying something.”Yes, it’s you saying you don’t know what you are talking about.