Does anyone know of, or can anyone find, a tally of persons that Palin fired for “not supporting her?”
All the Palin news lately has me reeling a little bit and I’m having trouble remembering all the details with the influx of Palin breaking news.
I know there was the Police Chief. There was the attempted firing of the librarian. I also vaguely remember an entire board or two were dismissed as well and populated with loyal supporters.
Anyone have the straight dope?
She gave letters of intent to the entire staff, *every *dep’t head. Only the Cheif of Police and the Head of the Museum dept (which was merged with the Library dept) actually lost their jobs.
There is some dispute or confusion about Emmons, the Politicaly appointed Dept head over the Library dept. She got the same letter as everyone else. Emmons and Palin met the next day, and Emmons agreed to merge the Library and Musuem dep’t, whereupon Palin rescinded the firing. Perhaps Emmons was “fired” for one day or not fired at all, it’s hard to tell.
No repopulation with a staff of loyal supporters. It’s worth noting that both Emmons and the Cheif campaigned openly and actively for Palin’s opponent in the election. And that the entire staff were political appointees who served at the will of the Mayor, so Palin had the legal right to fire them.
The Police Cheif was the most active and vocal opponent of Palin’s, and he did lose his job because of it.
Not that I want to turn this into a debate, however
Okay. Granted that they serve at the will of the Mayor, but political firings and appointings still don’t normally sit well with the electorate since they’d rather have the best person for the job, not the most loyal to the mayor.
Anyway, perhaps I could have phrased my question a little better. I know there were boards that were dismissed such as the Agriculture and Conservation board over the Mat Maid (DairyGate) semi-scandal.
Were there further boards such as this that were dismissed?
Well, generally the entire Cabinet turns in their resignations when there’s a new President, is that what you mean? 
I think we may need to be careful about this mass request for resignations. Mostly because it’s something that Obama is going to be doing when he begins his term as president…he’s going to be requesting the resignations of all 50-odd US attorneys, just as every single incoming non-incumbent president has done in at least the last 50 years. Remember the kerfluffle from the Republicans when Bush fired those 8 or so US attorneys in late 2006? Remember how the Republicans started screaming that Clinton had done the same thing? That’s what he did, just as every president’s done for a very long time. And it’s just what Obama is going to do.
If we make a huge deal out of this, which was apparently her right to do according to the town charter or ordinances or whatever, we’re opening ourselves up to something very big and very bad around February.
Did you know the library and the museum were never actually merged? Yeah, it’ll be a cold day in hell before I believe Emmons was fired for any reason other than a petty Palin grudge.
Perhaps it’s just me that doesn’t agree with the policy. I’d prefer that the cabinet be made up of a menagerie of different perspectives, both Repub and Democrat, as long as the people care most about serving America and not advancing their own interests.
I think the US Attorneys is a bad example as political affiliation and views don’t affect the hiring of US attorneys. That’s what the mess with Bush was about, his administration, with or without his direct knowledge, was hiring and firing based on political views.
Besides, not only should we ask for everyone in the Bush administration’s resignation, we should probably have them deported 
At the federal level, yes, not only the Cabinet members and other major agency heads, but pretty much all political appointees all turn over every time the administration changes (usually even when a new President takes over even if the same party as the previous).
However, on a state level, the rule is not absolute: most of the Cabinet turns over, but some Department heads serve multiple administrations, even of different political parties.
On a town level, wholesale change is very rare, and for a town as small as Wasila, even one firing of this kind is very unusual.
The difference is the size of the institutions. Firing the Police Chief loses a lot more institutional knowledge and expertise than replacing the Secretary of Labor (plus a lot of what the Secretary of Labor needs to know is stuff that’s studied and discussed by lots of people, so you can find someone that knows the basics. There aren’t that many people already familiar with crime patterns in Wasila).
But they do, even in administrations that haven’t politicized the DoJ. US Attorneys are political appointees, not civil service hires. They have always been subject to political vetting, and that’s both legal and allowed…they’re the people who set the federal agenda as far as what kinds of crimes to focus on. The scandal with the US Attorneys wasn’t that they were following the administration’s focus on crimes (whether that was focusing on crimes against children, or morals charges, or counterfeiting, or whatever), it was that the cases they were pursuing (or, in the cases of the fired attorneys, weren’t pursuing) could basically be described as “crimes allegedly committed by Democrats timed to sway an election”. That’s a bit too far out on the political limb for anyone with investigative and palliative powers and a sense of duty to ignore. Too bad Congress’s sense of duty wasn’t a little bit deeper and a little bit broader, with a little bit more backbone.
Not exactly accurate. The Public Works Director, Jack Felton, also lost his job and for no apparent reason. He wouldn’t discuss it with me (non-disclosure) other than to say that Palin was a “psychotic bitch”.
Quite possibly, but if so the grudge lasted less than a day.
Yes, but the difference was in those 8 US attorneys were not fired routinely as part of the purge that happens when a new Prez takes office.
Now, the “Palin purge” was exactly that- a mass purge of all appointees upon taking office. Why the fuck a little pissant town like Wasilla does that is beyond me.
If Emmons had been fired a year into Palins “reign”, and not part of the mass purge, then yes, I’d have concerns it was about censorship. As it was- no, it had nothing to do with censorship.
Right. :smack:
But did he campaign actively and openly for Palins opponent in that election?
You may have misunderstood me. I was using the Bush firings as a counter-example. I was saying that we need to be careful about screaming from the rooftops about the Wasilla purge because it’s something she had a right to do at the beginning of her term as Mayor, just as it’s something Obama has a right to do at the beginning of his term as president, and most likely will do.
Agreed that it’s kind of weird for a little town like Wasilla to do this, but that doesn’t mean it was corrupt or illegal or unethical. There’s plenty of other stuff to ding her on that IS one, two or all three of those.
I have no idea, nor can I ask him. He died several years ago.
That was one allegation, as was the notion that they were fired for actually investigating the Bush administration or republicans. Any proof of either?
Of course not. You know why? Because nobody on that side will or would testify under oath and tell the goddamn truth. There are STILL extant subpeonas for Bush administration officials to come before Congress on the matter, that were not complied with. Note that these people did not come before Congress and assert executive privilege or the 5th Amendment, they just ignored the subpeona.
The utter disregard for the principle that the president (and by extension, the administration) is not above the law will be the single most dangerous act that any political figure can do to destroy the Constitution.