I'm grateful that you weren't snarky in this post, Kevin...

That's the sound of the other moosehide mukluk dropping....

Conveniently I imagine those testimony sessions could be stretched out over several days or weeks. That might require French delaying release of the results of his inquiry until after the election or risk accusations of publicizing incomplete findings. No doubt this strategy was mapped out in the same meetings discussing Palin’s VP possibilities.

Who could step into the VP slot if they dump Palin?

Palin could have cooperated fully, like she said she would before being tapped by McCain. She could have asked everyone to testify quickly and ask that the report be finished by mid-September. It probably would have been a two-news-cycle embarassment and not even on the radar right now.

Instead, McCain's crack team of neocons, borrowed from Bush's crew and led by Steve Schmidt, chose to play stonewall, because of course they know better than everyone else. So now we'll have a nice October surprise, to add to all the fireworks on Wall Street, just to remind everyone about the arrogance we so want to put behind us. Heckuva job.

So what if the probe finds she did something wrong? It's just those "elitists" down in Juneau persecuting a poor Christian hockey-mom, right? If her supporters have stuck with her up to this point, a corruption investigation is hardly going to move them. The campaign will just blow it off. It's not like they have to face difficult questions from the press or anything.

Can Palin, as governor, pardon herself for state crimes in advance of trial, such as Ford did for Nixon? I've read mixed opinions of Bush's ability to pardon himself with some legal scholars firmly of the opinion he can. Could a similar mechanism be available to Palin?

What I find amazing is the on-going Republican assumption that responding to subpoenas is optional, perhaps even excessively virtuous. Why aren't people going to jail for ignoring them?

As I recall, the Constitution specifically states that the pardon power does not extend to the pardoner.

What I find amazing is the on-going Republican assumption that responding to subpoenas is optional, perhaps even excessively virtuous. Why aren't people going to jail for ignoring them?

Because Democrats are fucking idiots.

HTH.

You may very well be correct Julia, I'd like a citation but I'm too lazy to look for myself. I can't name names but over the last few years of Bush's criminality I've seen and read remarks from legal scholars saying otherwise or implying it wasn't a black and white issue. If it's addressed specifically in the Constitution I don't understand their outlook on the matter. Maybe they were just rank partisans hoping he had a "Keep out of jail" card in his hip pocket.

Who could step into the VP slot if they dump Palin?

Then, the best question is, who in their right mind would?

As I recall, the Constitution specifically states that the pardon power does not extend to the pardoner.

It does say that you can't pardon cases of impeachment, but that's not the same thing.

jonas, we don't care what palin's "supporters" think: they are a very small number of people.

we care what the undecideds think.

Whoops - sorry - that's about the US Constitution, not the Alaska Constitution. I have no idea what the Alaska Constitution says about pardons.

Now is this the real, original investigation of the ethics scandal or the sham one that Palin installed, conducted by a board that reports to her (as the Gov)? And what of the emergency appeal to the Alaska State supreme court by the McCain campaign to quash release of the report?

Who could step into the VP slot if they dump Palin?

Apparently, any hockey mom will do.

I think you miss the whole point of this sudden "cooperation." A report was to come out 10 October, I think. Now, however, they have to work out collecting statements from these seven people, and there is the possibility they can drag this thing out even more, perhaps until after 4 November.

Kevin,

I hope you understand that at the roots, Palin is being charged with a crime that most of the feminists on your blogroll insists never happens, or happens so infrequently, we really needn't bother with it.

Nothing will come of this.

I hope you understand that at the roots, Palin is being charged with a crime that most of the feminists on your blogroll insists never happens, or happens so infrequently, we really needn't bother with it.

Sorry, I don't get it. What the hell are you talking about?

False accusations of abuse and domestic violence. Women and family "getting even" with divorced spouses. Parental and family alienation.

actually, jerry, you're wrong, which is no surprise.

the issue at hand is whether sarah palin used the power of her office to pursue a personal vendetta.

period.

whether the guy was a creep or not, whether the divorce accusations are accurate or not, whether there is alientation going on: none of these matter, nor does anyone's opinion regarding them (this is, of course, putting aside your misreading of what feminists think about these kinds of things).

abuse of power is the reason the story matters (well, abuse of power and lying about it).

"why hasn't anyone gone yo jail for ignoring the supoenas" The democrats sometimes seem like idiots, but look what's become of the judicial system, I haven't forgot Gonzales and the shit he took on the justice system, with the blessing of the executive branch. hell Cheny even redefined the position of VP to avoid telling the truth about outing a covert agebt working on...sntiterrosism, that's treason. Kucinich (?)has been sayingthis all along. where are the patriots ont eh Repug side? Its takes a 2/3 majority to get anything done.

Hollis is burning the midnite seal oil to get this done by the penultimate weekend of the month. (Halloween Weekend won't do, even if the monstrous egotism, nepotism, & power-hunger of Palin is most fitting the American holiday of All Saints's Eve.)

Also, Talis Colberg? Anyone have a cite on his age? Could well be the first child of Sarah Palin, figuring he could be 30, & she had an undisclosed, unwed, teenage pregancy during 9th grade.

Talis. Really. I guess he has the deluxe suite in the GOP's Log Casa Poporului.

I normally am one to hate conspiracy theories, but is this something she could be dismissed from the vice presidency for? That is to say, if the report is released after Nov. and somehow they worked their way into office, could she be fired and replaced by somebody else who shares her interest in increasing the power of the office? Hint hint?

It interests me that hard partisans like Kevin and the folks posting comments so relish the prospect of a person on the other side "going down" in some scandal. I'm sure dems also see it in republicans focusing on Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc., but the comments here (and even Kevin, normally a voice of reasonableness) seem particularly hostile and even vicious.

In any event, below is very interesting and insightful analysis by Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics about how the repubs though the party and independent groups will attack on Wright, Ayers and Rezko to try to change the image of Obama and beat him [by the way, I think the economy will overcome everything and Obama is likely to win an election that he otherwise would have lost - if that happens, I hope he becomes a great president]:

"This means that a candidate can have the best of both worlds: he can enjoy the effectiveness of a negative attack while condemning it at the same time. The end result is therefore similar to what we saw in the early age of American electoral politics when the presidential nominees didn't take an active part in politicking, but their affiliates nevertheless went for the jugular.

I'd bet every dollar I have that this is going to offend the sensibilities of Democrats nationwide. But I'd also bet every dollar that, if the shoe were on the other foot, the Democrats would not hesitate to do likewise. One party's vicious smear is always the other party's vital truth. That's just the way it is.

I'm again reminded of Old Hickory. During the 1828 campaign, his surrogates accused John Quincy Adams of acting as a pimp for the Czar of Russia. Adams's supporters accused Jackson of murdering his own soldiers during the Creek War. Politicos don't do that kind of stuff anymore, but that's largely because that kind of stuff doesn't work anymore. However, we should always expect them to do what they think works - the denunciation of their political opponents notwithstanding."

Brian on 10/07/08 at 12:28 AM: "It interests me that hard partisans like Kevin and the folks posting comments so relish the prospect of a person on the other side "going down" in some scandal."

It interests us, Brian, because so few of the crimes of the Bush administration have been prosecuted. They haven't even bothered to respond to subpoenas issued by the US Congress.

We're sick & tired of Republicans acting like they are above the law and getting away with it (thanks Ms. Pelosi.)

If Republicans had adhered to the law or appeared when compelled to do so before Congress, and had Palin cooperated with this investigation as she promised she would, this would not be an issue.

The issue is not our thirst for blood. The issue is Republicans ignoring the law of the land.

I hope you understand that at the roots, Palin is being charged with a crime that most of the feminists on your blogroll insists never happens, or happens so infrequently, we really needn't bother with it.
===
Yeah, got it, ignored it the first time you posted this nonsensical comment. Dude, you gotta keep your own aliases and blog-spamming attempts straight. If you don't even care where and how you're trolling, why should the rest of us?