I gotta agree with Scylla here.
(I’d let it slide for a beloved Democrat, so I’d better not ruffle my feathers in Palin’s case.)
Couldn’t it be argued that part of the job of Governor is PR? If you were a Sarah Palin fan, and most of you aren’t, but if you were, wouldn’t you like to see the kids and Kato Kaelin (I mean Todd)? It is part of the package that she brings as Governor.
She is not an Accountant, an IT Pro, or an Engineer. This is not like you all bringing your spouses and kids on your business trips so they can swim in the hotel pool while you meet with clients.
And even if it was, I see this shit all of the time in South Florida. In January and February, execs are down here week in and week out, with their families, staying in plush hotels, as part of Workplace Stress Reduction.
Funny how they come down here when it is freezing cold up north and nice here. When it is hot as hell here their level of workplace stress seems to be low, or else the don’t come to Florida…
i can understand the clothing allowance for gov. palin. she does have to go to rallys and on tv etc. she may not have the wardrobe for that.
her family, that i’m not so sure of. they don’t have to be at every rally and it is school season.
as far as traveling… even pro sports doesn’t pay for families to travel, and if anyone could pay it is pro sports. if a player wants his or her family there they pay. in home games they do get free tickets.
When I go visit customers (which is rare, usually it’s the salespeople) I am definitely doing PR and trying to get the customers to buy our software. If I had some little angels in tow I’m sure they would feel more sorry for me and buy our product so that I could send my kids to college.
And I think it is unfair that CEOs get the benefit when Joe the Chicken Plucker does not. Joe the Chicken Plucker is the one who could use the break and the money.
So is Joe the Chicken Plucker the new Joe the Plumber?
I hope so. I’m sure tired of that Plumber guy.
You can argue all you want that part of the job of Gov. is PR, but unless you can find it in the Alaska State Constitution you’re just whistling out of your asshole.
I can’t say it is right- but I have been on law firm jets and I was not ‘officially’ on business- and it didn’t cost anything other than a soda during the flight extra, unless you count the miniscule gas cost of an extra 150 pounds.
AHA!!! So all of the PEOPLE get to bring their kids on planes for free!
Where does it say where the mess hall is ?
So, under your theory, how can the Governor even claim her own personal travel as a business expense? She doesn’t need to fly anywhere to perform her executive functions.
The set of Palin + Clinton does not equal the larger set of “politicians.”
I used a very specific comparison. You have falsely inflated it into a generality and pretended that was my stance when I said no such thing.
Falsely equating the specific to mean the general is both dishonest and a logical fallacy.
Ah, I see. Would you then disapprove if it were anyone either than one of those two? What is it that sets them apart from the larger class of politicians?
They were both relatively obscure state governors from rural states with minor children thrown into the national spotlight as they became candidates in a presidential election.
They have a degree of commonality not applicable to the larger set “politicians.” You know that.
Again, I don’t appreciate your continued disingenuousness. I don’t appreciate you’re putting words in my mouth. I don’t appreciate you’re wasting my time by necessitating that I correct your dishonest extrapolations and false attributions.
If you’re incapable of using the quote button, you could simply ask before you attribute to me positions I haven’t made.
I think false attribution is a debate tool commonly used by the most dishonest and least intelligent posters on this board, and I’m surprised to see you lowering your bar this way.
As one of those privileged to occasionally fly on the corporate jet, I can attest to the fact that it’s easily one of the top and most coveted executive perks.
So here’s a woman who gets rid of the government jet for travel, saving hundreds of thousands. She expenses $21,000 or so to keep her kids with her when she travels. And her political opponents turn it into a field day.
Castigating the woman for this is at the least mean-spirited sniping that exposes the political bias of the harper. At worst it’s the sort of idiotic argumentation that uses the letter of the law (and possibly not even that) to distort the general behaviour of the person being skewered. Not only is it embarassingly petty; it’s destructive. It is precisely the sort of politically-motivated nitpicking that helps keep women in their place. If ever there were an issue that focuses the dilemma of female execs, this is one. And to the general issue of our political system, it is precisely this sort of self-righteous carping from opponents that turns our political leaders on both sides into cynical bastards (if they weren’t that to begin with).
There’s no bigger picture being looked at here. There’s no effort at all to ascertain whether the overall public trust is being protected. No sirree. Got rid of the jet? So what? This woman spent our money ferrying her damn children around! The horror…the horror…
Proponents for Mr Obama do not elevate their cause being shrill about bullshit. They don’t separate themselves from the rabid right by wallowing in self-righteous indignation over something this petty. And when Mr Obama ascends to the Presidency he will not be well-served by this type of culture, because it promotes only division and hypocrisy.
The woman did what few in power have ever done: deprive herself of the corporate jet, saving her taxpayers real money at a real loss to her personal comfort. That does, indeed, play into the equation, and it does say something about her leadership in the area of controlling travel expenses. Those who pretend some purist philosophy gets to separate those two actions are indistinguishable from small-time booger-flickers casting snot because they know they don’t like an opposing debater but they are too mentally challenged to focus on substantive issues.
There are fish to fry in this election. This one is not even a minnow.
And your point is?
Yes, of course you see a lot of execs down in South Florida with their families in the “winter” months. How do you know that the the family is down there on the company dime? In probably 90% of the cases (except for the thieving scumbags, like SP) the exec is on the company dime and the cost of the family is being paid by the family. Those are typically the rules and are not considered unethical. To expense the family to the company is almost always considered highly unethical and not condoned or tolerated.
Quite honestly, I don’t think my deduction was a stretch at all. You can get all pissy if you like, but I think that’s simply because you don’t seem to have thought through the implications of your comment. I don’t think that I’m the one being disingenous here.
Now that I’ve got some clarification, it seems to me that your stance is that it’s OK if a relatively obscure state governor from a rural state with minor children thrown into the national spotlight as they became a candidate in a presidential election has done it. Is that closer?
If that is closer - what makes it OK for those politicians and not for any other politician?
On further relection, why don’t you put your words right out here instead of pussyfooting around?
Here, I’ll offer three templates, any one of which you can use as a springboard.
- It is OK for any politician to do it.
- It is OK for some politicians to do it.
- It is not OK for any politician to do it.
After you’ve addressed this, perhaps we can continue the discussion in a reasonable facsimile of sensible.
No governor (nor any employee of any company) should be claiming personal travel as a business expense. Only expenses made on business trips should be claimed as a business expense. How is that not obvious?
Since when did one right and one wrong make a right? Palin opposed the jet as sucking on the government tit even though it was used to transport prisoners. She campaigned on this issue, won the election and sold the jet, at a loss, to much acclaim. Then because she had no jet to fly her kiddies around she charged the government for the commercial travel of her kids. I’m sorry, but this is wrong. Her kids are not government employees. As a mom I feel for her and understand why she wants to take her kids with her on business trips. I felt the same way and took my kids with me but paid for it MYSELF.
Sheesh, I just wasted 2 hours going through the annual big international company answerable to stock holders standards of business conduct training (I passed).
Two Basic rules of thumb (at least at my MNC):
[ol]
[li]ask permission first (not forgiveness or fraud later). [/li][li]Be upfront, transparent and remove yourself from the process when there is even a whisper of a potential conflict of interest. [/li][/ol]
I am assuming that the State of Alaska has a code of conduct for elected officials. I would be greatly surprised if the above 2 points are not included in some fashon or another and applicable to the Governor.