“America deserves better.”

To be honest, even John McCain deserves a lot better. I don’t believe for a second that he wanted Palin as his VP, he’s not an idiot. Someone in the party must have convinced him that he needed a pick that would rouse the conservative Christian base because – as we saw in Wisconsin and elsewhere recently – he’s just not crazy enough for a lot of them. He’s too sensible. And he has too much integrity to pretend otherwise (although not enough to prevent him picking Palin.)

I have just finished reading the independent investigator’s report and, frankly, Palin has been convicted on a technicality.

All she appears to have done is to fail to restrain her husband from approaching and lobbying public officials to get a State Trooper fired.

Since Todd Palin can claim First Amendment rights to free speech just like everyone else, it’s hard to see why Governor Palin should be expected to rein her husband in.

And here’s where the technicality comes in – Palin has been found guilty of preventing her husband from using her office and office phone in pursuing his private vendetta.

Big Deal. Hardly a Watergate-scale offence.

Given that the said State Trooper is alleged to have been drinking on duty andto have tasered an 11-year-old boy, I’d guess most sensibe Americans would be wondering why he hadn’t been fired and quite sympathetic to Todd Palin’s attempts to remove him.

Shouldn’t the parallel be Nixon and McCain … i.e. picking a governor under an ethics cloud (Agnew/Palin) as a VP running mate?

@Tom

A technicality? Well, I guess you say tomato, I say tomato. That Wooten comes out of this incident smelling like a complete prick is undeniable, but ultimately irrelevant: his actions were to be judged by a court of law or by the Alaska State Troopers’ disciplinary procedures, not by a chief executive with a grudge. Also, it wasn’t Sarah Palin’s phone and it wasn’t Sarah Palin’s office – it was the state of Alaska’s. The Governor’s aides, who were asked by Todd Palin to do his bidding, were also paid by the state of Alaska and he used them all to pursue something which, if he’d been successful, would’ve been to his and his wife’s personal benefit. According to Alaska’s ethics laws, this is a violation of public trust.

Of course this isn’t Watergate; the stakes are smaller, no federal crime was committed and the Palins weren’t trying to pursue a political enemy (although the Noam Schreiber piece I link to provides evidence to suggest she’s done that in the past as well). But politicians are judged on their record and when you’ve been found guilty of violating ethics in your last job, there’s going to be a fear that you’ll do the same in your next job. If President/Vice President Palin knew a US marine who she thought was a real ass, would she then go to the Secretary of Defense and insist he was fired? And if the Secretary couldn’t/wouldn’t sack the officer in question, would he then be out of a job? Would any of that be acceptable? For me, the fact we’re even asking these questions disqualifies Palin as a responsible candidate.

Scott,

The analogy was based on what their actions reveal about their characters, rather than strict a strict historical comparison. By that measure, there’s quite a big difference between McCain’s character (even when you consider how much he’s shamed himself in this election) and Nixon’s. That said, I reserve the right to alter that opinion just in case this election gets even nastier than it is already.

@Neil

There is the argument that McCain’s character change has been hiding in plain sight all along.

@ Nell

You make a good case against Todd Palin. Sure he pursued a personal vendetta. As is his right as a free citizen. What did Sarah Palin do wrong…. beyond turn a blind eye to her husband using her (sorry, the State of Alaska’s) phone?

Well, Tom, if you subscribe to the idea that Todd Palin’s actions were solely those of a private citizen and are no reflection on her wife’s performance as the Governor of Alaska, then it’s entirely coherent to argue that she’s personally innocent of any wrongdoing. I don’t, and the reason I don’t is that your average private citizen/‘Joe sixpack’ wouldn’t have been able to get the ear of the Public Safety Commissioner, wouldn’t he have been able to get the Governor’s aides to follow-up on his requests, wouldn’t have been able to get the Governor herself to send a number of emails mentioning the matter, and wouldn’t have been able to get the Commissioner removed because, in part, he wasn’t willing to play along. In each of these instances the actions of Todd Palin were inextricably linked with the office of the Governor of Alaska, and if she didn’t want that office to be tainted by the pursuit of vengeance then she could and should have intervened. This was a decisive factor in the (overwhelmingly Republican) commission’s ruling and seems to be the consensus opinion in the media/commentariat.

There’s several ways of looking at it, I suppose. In any case, this is only of real consequence if John McCain gets elected, and right now I suspect the only white house Sarah Palin will be entering come Inauguration Day will be the Alaska Governor’s Mansion.

@ Nell

this is only of real consequence if John McCain gets elected, and right now I suspect the only white house Sarah Palin will be entering come Inauguration Day will be the Alaska Governor’s Mansion.

Don’t count your chickens. By the time 3 to 4 million fraudulent ACORN-registered voters have been disqualified, the electoral math could be looking very different.

“Don’t count your chickens. By the time 3 to 4 million fraudulent ACORN-registered voters have been disqualified, the electoral math could be looking very different.”

Ah, touche! I can assure you, Tom, that I’m not counting my chickens just yet. A chronic case of the jitters is something of a family tradition…

Sarah Palin:

“Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there.”

Report:

Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.51.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

Oops, here’s the link to the money quote: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SPJhPH2yT5I/AAAAAAAABHg/75YzOLKt4gg/s1600-h/report.png

Can I mention Bretton Woods?