Obama “needing” a non-VP surrogate to attack the GOP VP candidate makes Obama’s campaign and Biden in particular look weak. The fact that Biden’s holding his tongue about Palin speaks volumes about the Obama campaign’s targets. Focusing their attention on McCain, who still fails to enthuse GOP party loyalists, keeps Palin’s name out of the spotlight.
In addition, the media is turning up story after story about Palin and her star is slowly tarnishing. Her first interview failed to impress people who weren’t inclined to like her in the first place. The lack of media access is keeping the coverage focused away from her soundbites and instead on her back story, which isn’t overwhelmingly positive (there may be a certain amount of resentment from the media over the lack of access as well). These stories feed the perceived lack of vetting and helps Obama’s narrative that McCain is not ready to make crucial decisions as president.
Short answer: No Palin news is good news for Obama. Hillary makes news. Ergo, no Hillary.
At some time in the last couple weeks it would have been natural (and possibly quite effective) for Hillary Clinton to have made some noteworthy statement flattening Palin’s pretensions to be representing the needs of women. The lack of such statement(s) indicates that she is quite willing to let “scorned” women voters tack over towards Palin/McCain, and hope that in 2012 she can get them back. Another nifty little balancing act for HRC.
Oh yes - a “reformer” who’s been knee-deep in the same sort of pork-barrel politics as other Alaska politicians, and who’s spent lots of time going after enemies and putting old buddies on the payroll, not to mention taking undeserved pay for working at home. Those are some reform credentials.
She’ll look even better when more of the in-state investigation comes to light.
If there is one. The Alaska Republican Party is suing to have the investigation delayed until after the election on the grounds that it’s a partisan witchhunt. Never mind that the committee that is running the investigation is 3-2 Republican (and that Wasilla’s Republican state senator was the deciding vote to go forward) and never mind that the president of the Alaska Senate (whose assent is needed for subpeona issuance) is a Republican as well.
In the words of my spiritual guide, Inspector Gadget: “Wowzers.”
Presuming this story is true, just how deep does the rabbit hole go? That drip-drip-drip of disturbing news from the Sarah Palin faucet could turn into slow torture for the Republicans’ chances at the White House this election cycle. This is disturbing news. I don’t even feel the same level of partisan glee that I normally would when one of the nattering nabobs of neoconservatism falls face-first into the soup.
This is a motivation to fire someone? Chain of command issues aside, you work something out with an employee whose motive is protecting women and children from sexual assault, no?
A city or state employee doesn’t get to “go over the head” or “around the chain of command” of the Mayor or Governor, no matter how noble the intentions. (After all, his replacement can and will continue to pursue those same worthwhile programs.)
I don’t know if the gent had the authority to seal a deal with the Fed’s.
He may inadvertantly lock the city or state into some (Federal) requirement that’s supposed to be approved by the legislature first.
Let’s say that this guy goes after Federal dollars for this program by directly negotiating with the Feds. Let’s say the Fed’s have a requirement that in order to get the money, the City/State has to meet certain Federal guidelines. (Wage scales, for example.) But there might be a requirement that the City/State cannot afford, or does not agree with. Not only that, there might be City Charter or State Law that require that this must be handled and approved through a legislature.
As worthy a goal as investigating and prosecuting rape cases is, the guy may have overstepped his authority. The article is unclear if he overstepped himself or not. It should have said so, if he did, but with sloppy (and possibly political) reporting all 'round the country these days, I can no longer be that certain, especially in a campaign year.
The Democrats will do well to avoid any attacks on Palin, at least until she starts speaking and stumbling. To attack her now, while she is in her 15 minutes of fame, would backfire. Once she starts speaking on the issues and stumbling, she’ll dig a deep enough hole on her own. As they say, Obama & Biden, two heads are better than none. Let it all unfold as it undoubtedly will.
mlees, very excellent points. It appears that in responding to this I let the emotional component take precedence. Legislative norms are there for a reason, and it is hardly ever a wise thing to make decisions you are not authorized to make.
Still and all, I’m viewing this from the perspective of the executive. I cannot see a benefit for in a realpolitical sense to open oneself up to such a line of criticism by immediately going after the head of your well-meaning employee when you have both the power to prevent any unauthorized spending and the knowledge that your state is experiencing extreme … difficulties… with the problem of sexual assault and abuse of women.
Would there not be room for an intermediate action, such as suspension? Granted, we do not know for certain that there were not other factors weighing in on the decision to fire Walt Monegan, but unless this was a ‘final straw’ situation, the penalty seems, to me, to be quite severe for an action meant to benefit so many.
I do not know that I would go so far as to say that a successor, seeing these actions, would be so anxious to pursue the same noble goals unless directly bidden by the executive, given the proven consequences of doing so. Broaching the question could be seen as a further questioning of authority, and there seems to be little tolerance of that from Palin.
I agree, for the most part. But the article was short, and there are a lot of details left out that we have to guess at.
Could she have merely reprimanded him? Sure, I suppose so. She may have been looking for an excuse to fire people who aren’t doing their jobs right (in an effort to trim the budget). I dunno.
I would have no problems just asking my new boss what “priorities” she has, or what programs to continue to prepare/push for (within the proper guidelines), and which ones she wants dropped.
“Oh. I see that Walt was trying to find funding for this program. Are we going to go ahead with this, or is that on the back burner for now? Ok. Roger that.”
In an enviornment with a strict authoritarian boss, it’s actually more important to clear these things up (in private, if necessary), using the proper professional etiquette, and remove all doubt as to what is expected of you.