The Washington Post Digs Deeper in the Palin Corruption Scandal

Thought that the investigation into the alleged improprieties of the presumptive Republican Vice Presidential nominee wouldn't come back to bite John McCain, that it doesn't matter whether a presidential campaign fully vets its number two pick? Think again. The Washington Post does some great reporting and gets ahold of the man Palin had fired -- allegedly for failing to fire her one-time brother-in-law --who had not previously spoken to the national press.

[Walter] Monegan, 57, a respected former chief of the Anchorage Police Department [who was fired in June as Alaska Public Safety Commissioner], said in an interview with The Washington Post's James V. Grimaldi on Friday that the governor repeatedly brought up the topic of her ex-brother-in-law, Michael Wooten, after Monegan became the state's commissioner of public safety in December 2006. Palin's husband, Todd, met with Monegan and presented a dossier of information about Wooten, who was going through a bitter custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly. Monegan also said Sarah Palin sent him e-mails on the subject, but Monegan declined to disclose them, saying he planned to give them to a legislative investigator looking into the matter.

Palin initially denied that she or anyone in her administration had ever pressured Monegan to fire the trooper, but this summer acknowledged more than a half a dozen contacts over the matter, including one phone call from a Palin administration official to a state police lieutenant. The call was recorded and was released by Palin's office this month. Todd Palin told a television reporter in Alaska that he did meet with Monegan, but said he was just "informing" Monegan about the issue, not exerting pressure.

"She never directly asked me to fire him," Monegan said.

But he said Todd Palin told him Wooten "shouldn't be a trooper. I've tried to explain to him, you can't head hunt like this. What you need to do is back off, because if the trooper does make a mistake, and it is a terminable offense, it can look like political interference.

"I think he's emotionally committed in trying to see that his former brother-in-law is punished."

Many have pointed out that there is an ongoing investigation into Palin's potential abuse of power -- an investigation, by the way, which is expected to culminate in a public report during the first couple of days in November -- and at least from the allegations being made by Monegan, it sounds like there may be some "there" there. As noted in The Post piece quoted above, Palin has already been forced to walk back from some of her earliest denials -- never a great sign in these types of investigations. So while I still believe that the coming verdict in the trial of Ted Stevens could be a major problem for Palin, and thus for John McCain, it looks like it's not the only corruption issue that could hamper the GOP ticket. I guess it is important to run a thorough vet after all...



Display:


Realism (none / 0)

Let's be realistic:  even Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow acknowledged that the so-called Troopergate scandal is a political non-starter for us.  This state trooper Wooten was a vicious wife beater, and definetely didn't have the temperament to be State Trooper.

I suggest we focus on the temperament of our opponent running to be Commander-in-Chief.


by MMR2 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:57:27 PM EST

Re: Realism (none / 0)

I suggest we start ignoring every person who suggests we ignore avenues of attack,e specially when said attacks aren't by 'we" it's by the WaPo. Last I check- WaPo isn't a democratic operation.


by bruh3 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Realism (none / 0)

Good point.  Let the press do it.  This is one of those, stay-out-of-the-way-while-your-opponent- digs-a-hole kinds of things.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Realism (2.00 / 1)

no matter what the brother-in-law was like this looks like real abuse of office. there are appropriate ways to have done this but she choose this route. It should be framed like that and to try to ignore it is not really an option


by zerosumgame on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:21:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Realism (none / 0)

I'm not so sure.  Yes, if the allegations against the brother-in-law are true, they are atrocious.  But does this mean that an honest man and dutiful civil servant should lose his job because he refuses to pursue an issue that is beyond his jurisdiction or responsibilities in that particular role?  Do we really want a capricious person like this in the White House?


by Philoguy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:28:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Realism (none / 0)

How do we know he was a vicious wife beater?  Is it the word of Palin's sister?  Was he ever arrested for it?  Are they just accusations in a bitter custody battle?


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:44:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a Hail-Mary (none / 0)

I predict the Republican big-shots are going to put heavy-duty pressure on McCain to drop Palin ASAP and then hope they can invent some sort of "family emergency" as a cover story--which of course no one will buy.

This pick is somewhere between Eagleton and Quayle bad.

Despite what some of us may believe, there's still a lot of responsible, serious Republicans out there like George Will and Colin Powell and I predict they will be apoplectic about McCain's choice of running-mate.  Not because they're afraid McCain will lose, but because McCain will have poisoned the Republican brand.  I'll bet they would rather McCain pick Romney and then lose with some dignity intact.

If McCain sticks with Palin, the election is absolutely Obama's to lose.  This is really really reckless and irresponsible of McCain and IMHO makes him look profoundly unserious.


by Will Graham on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:00:29 PM EST

Re: This is a Hail-Mary (none / 0)

Admittedly I was a child in 1988 when Bush/Quayle got elected... and I only have a vague understanding of why he wasn't the best VP choice in the world.

But for the life of me I cannot understand why we keep choosing that as the gold standard for bad choices a Republican can make when he did become our VP.

Believe me, I know that Quayle is  great cannon fodder for jokes- but is it the right compariosn here, and if so why?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a Hail-Mary (none / 0)

Because the CW is that he did not help, and probably contributed to Bush's loss four years later.  If your meme is that Bush is out of touch, then Quayle was the gift that just kept on giving.  But anyway, Bush won despite Quayle, not because of him.

I mean, this may be some incredibly obscure strategy whereby Palin becomes an object of sympathy OR she's being set up to distract people from McGaff OR the hope is that by attacking her directly the Obama campaign will diminish itself.  You never want your nominee jousting with the other team's backup.

But she's absolutely incomprehensible.  Want to pick a woman?  Pick one who has accomplishments.  Want to molify the base?  Pick Rob Portman, or even Romney.  Or do both and pick Kay Bailey Hutchinson - she's not the most charismatic candidate but she's solid.

This looks to me like a panic move, or maybe it's just an old fashioned fuckup.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a Hail-Mary (none / 0)

Quayle was bad, but at least he had some baseline level of experience to point to (about 12 years I think).  Plus, George H W Bush was younger and much healthier than McCain is now--so people didn't worry about it too much, but believe me, it was a concern for voters.

Let's face it: McCain is really old and for him to put someone so inexperienced (less than 2 years as governor of a very small population state) at the bottom of his ticket is insulting to me and I think should be insulting to just about everyone else.  It betrays a staggering degree of arrogance and in my view makes him look very irresponsible and unserious.

 


by Will Graham on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:19:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a Hail-Mary (2.00 / 2)

he made himself a joke by attacking a fictional person and also showed his abusive side when he abused an elementary school student for spelling potato the way he was taught.


by zerosumgame on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:24:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a Hail-Mary (2.00 / 1)

Just in case you're right, "we" (with the usual caveat that we don't control strategy and can only influence news cycles if we develop a lasting meme) should keep making Eagleton joke.

She's Eagleton without the experience.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:06:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a Hail-Mary (none / 0)

I said it earlier today, but I think was an absolute perfect choice from McCain's perspective.  I think Sarah Palin is what the Republican Party needs to be in the 21st century to survive.  I don't agree with her on policy, but if I viewed this from a conservative standpoint, she's perfect, provided she gets national.  She supports same-sex benefits.  She's fiscally conservative, but blue collar .  She has a family, but is a career woman.  There's other areas that we could expand on, but if the Republican Party is open to ideas (and yes, that's a big issue), Sarah Palin, and people like her, could remake the Party into a force.  I think she can mobilize their base, as the early responses have indicated, and I think she can try and move to the middle.

In terms of this election, I do buy that this is a gamechanger.  The Republican base has dwindled, but it is still a force, and if the early responses are true, they are fired up about this.  The foreign policy argument is limited, as people vote for the top of the ticket.

McCain is making a hard push for enough of the middle.  If he can get people to buy into McCain/Palin as a reform ticket ... well that's the big if.  They are not reformers, not in the way this country needs them to be, IMO, but again, elections are as much about policy as they are about personality and the ability to sell.  Don't underestimate Sarah Palin, now or in the near future.  The expectations are low, meaning that "winning" a debate vs. Joe Biden is very possible (and by all accounts, she's a skilled debater), and that, if McCain/Palin loses, she probably won't be too hurt by it, as she would've started the process of getting national exposure.

I am definitely more concerned now than I was after Wednesday/Thursday, after Bill Clinton/Obama did such masterful jobs.


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a Hail-Mary (2.00 / 1)

She does NOT support same sex benefits.  She only vetoed the bill becaues the state supreme court stated the law was unconsitutional.  She is fully in favor of ammending the Alaska state constitution to ban same sex benefits.

Please do not tell lies about this woman that makes her seem more moderate than the Pat Buchanan worshiping paleocon that she is


by gavoter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a Hail-Mary (none / 0)

Yes, I know.  Sorry, I haven't been too nuanced on Friday night.  Perception vs. Reality - How do you think her actions are going to play, though?  Will people focused on the nuances, or the end result?  The former is what we desire, the latter is often what actually occurs.  


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:37:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

At the end of the day, if the allegations against the ex-brother in law are true about gross misconduct, I've got a hard time believing this would stick.  Furthermore, as Monegan explicitly notes, there was no direct order.

Look, I want Democrats to win, but I've got a hard time buying this, unless something even bigger comes out (such as a direct order involving Palin) as a good way to attack Sarah Palin, who, despite disagreeing with her on policy, is someone that I think is a good role model and someone who has led a life worth admiring.

Do we really want poor officers on the street?  Do we really want troopers that were alleged to either be drinking on the job, or drinking and driving?  This really screams to me a case where Monegan's perceived something that might not necessarily be there.

Heck, even if she is guilty, which I highly doubt based on her history, it can still be spun as a positive (going to bat for your family against an individual who has been alleged to have conducted himself very poorly is something that I think all people support).

In saying all this, let's take it back.  I understand that the main issue (the trooper) isn't the focal issue (corruption).  That said, Monegan has essentially admitted that there was nothing there outside of what he perceived.

Are Sarah Palin's policies right for this country?  In large part, no (without knowing all her stances, I'm not going to make a blanket statement).  Would I support personally attacking her on this, if all the information out there (I've skimmed through Alaska media on this) is all there is?  No.  We can attack, but there is a threshold we should not cross, and I don't like this one bit.  Sure, I may get flamed, but let's attack, but attack on issues, which is what America, IMO, wants.

Do I expect that Alaskan Democrats may suddenly push this issue hard?  Yes, although considering how popular she is, I don't know how far it would get.


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:05:33 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

WE can't take it back.  She's currently under investigation.  How does the Washington Post not report that?  And how is it not an object of interest?


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I understand that.  I'm just saying, I don't buy into this line.  We can see how it plays out, but so far, everything in the Post has been in the Alaskan media for awhile.  I haven't seen anything new there, and by most accounts, most Alaskans aren't too big on this.  Of course, things could play different nationally, so yes, let it play out.  But, and this was my point, it didn't come across clear, though, was that, if we focus too much on this, we may run the risk of not doing enough elsewhere.  This is a woman that has done enough to show that she'll fight corruption.  Everyone brings up Stevens association with her, but she has denounced Ted Stevens actions as well, best that I recall.


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Powell (none / 0)

One more thing: If Colin Powell gets sufficiently angry about this and then publicly endorses Obama, the race will be all but over.


by Will Graham on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:06:22 PM EST

Re: Powell (none / 0)

What is Colin Powell's relation to this?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:08:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

To be honest, I agree (I think) with you.  I don't think that Colin Powell has significant political stature right now ... and I think he's happy about that and perhaps prefers it that way.  Powell always struck me as Sam Nunn - in politics because he can, but not because he wanted to.

Maybe he reintroduces himself back into the political climate, but for now, I think Colin Powell, a very admirable man, won't shake up this election cycle with an endorsement one way or another.


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:15:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

Really?   REALLY?

If the architect of the Powell doctrine, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the only member of the Bush administration to retain any dignity or credibility were to come out and say that his choice was Barack Obama, that won't have any effect?

None whatsoever?  REALLY?


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

Would it have an effect?  Yes.  Would it have a significant effect?  I think that is rather debatable.  There's a possibility that, if sold correctly, McCain/Palin can argue that Powell's judgment was flawed.  Would it take an enormous sell job for McCain, a disingenuous one at that?  Yes.  Have stranger things happened?  Yes.  Would Powell risk political capital on such a move, particularly when it would invite additional attention, far greater attention than, by most accounts, he desires?


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:25:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

Well first of all, this isn't idle speculation - this is based on concrete reports that Powell is going to endorse.

As for your worries, read my response below.  


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:28:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

Colin Powell, the man who help WIN the last war in Iraq, when he wasnt lied to by Bush and the rest of the administration.

Trust me, Colin Powel wants he reputation back.   If he says that Obama will protect America, that will carry a lot of weight. That is all McCain has left.   His only shot is to convince Americans that Obama will not protect them.


by gavoter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

Maybe to make his endorsement more convincing, he can show a bunch of aerial photos of trailers and hold up a little vial of pretend WMD. I hear that is an effective presentation style.

OK, my apologies for the sarcasm, but seriously, there is no way that Powell did not know at some level that he was selling the UN a bill of goods. He sold out his integrity that day, and I lost all respect for him. If Powell endorses Obama and that helps, fine. But his endorsement carries no weight for me.


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:02:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

He's supposedly flirting with endorsing.  A couple of people here were saying that he was waiting until they picked their VPs, but they want to fact check it before running around and reporting it.

If the Republican convention ends, and then the next day Colin Powell says "Barack Obama has the judgement and experience to be the next Commander-in-Chief" then what the fuck do the Republicans do THEN?


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

I don't think Colin Powell would put himself out there for one main reason.  He opens himself to attacks from Republicans, if McCain/Palin tries to distance themselves, that Powell's judgment was flawed.  It's a tricky line, and would it be disingenuous for McCain to push that when he was lockstep as well?  Sure, it'd be a huge sell job, but people have been swayed but far more before.


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

I think you're understating just how huge of a sell job it would be.  John McCain was in favor invading Iraq the day after 9/11.  How in the world does he not only distance himself from that decision, but turn Powell's endorsement into a negative?

If McCain is capable of that, then there's no point in planning anything at all, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.  Democratic unity?  McCain will find a way to turn it against him.  Obama endorsed by Admiral Fallon?  McCain turns it against him.  There's nothing to do but crouch and wait for the inevitable.

Please don't mistake this for an ad hominem, but that's been your answer to everything so far.  "Don't do that - it might backfire!  How, I don't know, but it might."


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:25:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

No, you are the one misreading it.  What I am saying isn't focused on fearing the unknown.  Rather, what I am saying is that

a)  I don't think Powell has enough political capital left to warrant such a move

b)  I don't think Powell would make such a move on his own

c)  McCain is going to pivot to a reform mantle.  To associate with Powell, for Obama, would be to blunt his line of attack against this being an election focused on Bush, which is one Obama can definitely win, rather than one focused on Obama, which, while winnable for Obama, is harder to achieve.

Is that clearer now?  Again, I don't care what - I really only care about Democrats winning.


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:28:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

Fair enough.  Personally, I think it would range from "bump in the polls" to "game-ender".  No way does that backfire.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:30:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

Honest question, but do you really think Powell has that level of political capital right now, in D.C. and in the public?  I'm just not sure he does - I think Condoleeza Rice, for all her flaws, might be more politically viable than Colin Powell right now.  Also, if Powell does endorse, do you think he goes far enough (repudiates all his past actions involving the war)?  Because that's the only way I can really see this working for Obama so well that it is significant, rather than getting a mixed response.

As noted, only time will tell.


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

I do.  A Powell endorsement would clinch the election for Obama.

Sounds like Rice is going to vote for Obama to...though obviously she can not endorse.


John McCain, maverick
by lojasmo on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:09:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Powell (none / 0)

Meant to add one more, which is

d)  The only way that this works in Obama's favor is if Powell repudiates everything he did ... meaning that he would not only burn what political capital he has left, but he would also really tarnish himself.  I just don't see Powell doing that, but you could be right.  The best way for him to rebuild capital is to let sleeping dogs lie and stay on the periphery.

In the end, only time will tell.  Do I think Powell will vote Obama?  My gut instinct is yes.  Do I think Powell will endorse Obama?  My guess is no.


by toonsterwu on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Relax! (none / 0)

No need to attack, the MSM is in a frenzy about this pick and watching the GOP spin it is going to be embarrassing (for them).

I even saw someone say today that because she took on Ted Stevens, she could take on Russia.  (I'm serious)


Conservatism is nothing but a bad laissez-fairey tale
by neko608 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:13:32 PM EST

Re: Relax! (2.00 / 1)

Wow.  Was that someone a Fox "news" "reporter"?

By the way, she initially supported the bridge to nowhere, and only came out against it when congressional democrats ordered a fucking inquiry into it.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:19:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Relax! (none / 0)

No I actually think it was Lindsay Graham (I could be wrong though) on CNN.  Wolf Blitzer had that "uh....ok....?" look on his face.


Conservatism is nothing but a bad laissez-fairey tale
by neko608 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:21:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Relax! (none / 0)

Funny.  Lindsay Graham thinks Ted Stevens has ICBMs.

And he's supposed to be the smart one.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Relax! (none / 0)

yes it was Graham!  Here is the quote:

Lindsey Graham on CNN: "Governor Palin took on Ted Stevens. If she can take him on, she can take on the Russians."


Conservatism is nothing but a bad laissez-fairey tale
by neko608 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He does have them. (none / 0)

They're stored in a series of tubes.

(Man, I'm so glad she was on camera with Stevens all the time, including her endorsement ad, otherwise I wouldn't be able to pull out the "series of tube" line early and often)


by TCQuad on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First impressions (none / 0)

In the American Press, first impressions are everything and Palin has not made a good impression.  Yes, it was big and it was loud, but I don't think it was good.

This is very similar to Quayle because Bush panicked and introduced what he thought was going to be the young, charismatic leader.   Of course the rumor at that time is that Quayle was picked for Bush.  But it still was a minor hit at Bush's leadership skills and led to 4 years of fodder for late night commedians.

I am not saying that Palin is like Quayle politically, I think she is much smarter.  But I do think that it is similar because the announcement seems to be generating mixed signals.


by gavoter on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:44:29 PM EST

I smell red meat....LMAO (2.00 / 1)

Maybe focusing on her brother inlaw is a nonstarter, but using her power and influence to harass and fire this man because he did not do her bidding...sounds like more of the same to me.  


by netgui68 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:02:39 AM EST

Resemblance to the US Attorney Scandal (2.00 / 1)

One of the things I haven't yet heard mentioned in relation to this story is the US Attorney scandal.  Yes, if indeed it is true that the brother-in-law was doing the things he's alleged to have been doing these are terrible things.  But that does not justify terminating an officials position because he won't bend to your will and do what you demand.  Doesn't this sound a lot like the draconian practices of the Administration with regard to those attorneys that wouldn't prosecute their will?  Is that really what we want on the short track to become president?  Isn't this precisely the sort of cronyism and abuse of power we need to get rid of?


by Philoguy on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:27:17 AM EST

John McCain just cost himself the state of Florida (none / 0)

sarah palin was a staunch supporter of pat buchanan's presidential run in 2000. pat buchanan's hatred of israel is well-documented.

i still cant get over this wacky pick. the first decision mccain makes and he blows it.

thank you karl rove.


Let the spin begin!
by KoolJeffrey on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:57:19 AM EST

Hmmm (none / 0)

Abuse of power in pursuit of a personal vendetta? Sounds like Iraq to me. She will fit right in!


Your attempt to change the subject to "the issues" is irrelevant.
by itsthemedia on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:06:33 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.