Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

www.nytimes.com

She has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

"Professionals were either forced out or fired"

Palin ordered city employees not to talk to the press.

Not deeply versed in policy, she uses color-coded index cards behind her nameplate at candidate forums.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]

Page one of the NY Times. I cant believe McCain went with a candidate with so much baggage compared to what she brings to the table.

We should call this the "table/baggage ratio".

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]

It is part of a pattern, Mr. Fagan said, in which Ms. Palin characterizes critics as “bad people who are anti-Alaska.”

At a recent lunch gathering, an official with the Wasilla Chamber of Commerce asked its members to refer all calls from reporters to the governor’s office. Dianne Woodruff, a city councilwoman, shook her head. “I was thinking, I don’t remember giving up my First Amendment rights,” Ms. Woodruff said. “Just because you’re not going gaga over Sarah doesn’t mean you can’t speak your mind.”

Wait till she gets her finger on the trigger of the un-patriot act.

After reading this article I have no doubt she'll march right in step with the neo-con agenda, no questions asked.

This is what america needs, another person who gets into power to run there vendettas. Bush finishing of his fathers work, etc....

Looks like you people in america have a worse choice than usual. Obama or mc cain, like bad either way, lol.

Come on this it the New York Times we are talking about. They have been known to do these kind of stories without any real evidence (McCain sex scandel and Palin book banning both turned out to be false). If other sources pick this up and go into more detail with less hearsay and it turns out to be credible that's fine but nytimes have done this kind of slander so much they no longer have the benefit of the doubt.

I find the whole thing sickening. Before this race even started, both sides agreed to not play the cut throat politics like had been done in the past. And what do we see now? The old, I slash you, you slash me political game. It`s like not only the political parties love doing this, the media feeds on it. And when things slow down, what happens? The media does it`s best to dig things up on one person or another, just to add fuel to the fire. And they wonder why people don`t vote anymore. It only tells me one thing, we are in for the same old garbage we have had to live with in the past. They don`t want change, they prove it by not playing by the original rules they had set from the start. Same old, same old.

reply to post by FiatLux


I think bringing up her past experience is relevant & fair.

Here is what she said about being mayor of Wasilla:

'It's not rocket science'
Arriving in office, Palin herself played down the demands of the job in response to residents who worried that her move to oust veteran officials would leave the town in the lurch. "It's not rocket science," Palin said, according to the town newspaper, the Frontiersman. "It's $6 million and 53 employees."

www.msnbc.msn.com...

reply to post by AllSeeingI


Now the newsmedia is angry and has decided to throw everything they got at Gov Palin. The more they throw, the more people will vote for her.

The NYT is a godsend to the GOP.

To ThroatYogurt:


Is it really? And digging into things from the past is going to do what for us? Show us that we all make mistakes? Who doesn`t make mistakes? It`s the issues at hand that we need to be looking at, not the mistakes of human beings. If that were the case, no one would be good enough to run this country.

I say instead of playing slash and run, just put the issues before them, and see what they will do to fix these things, then decide for ourselves who will be the best. Like I stated, if we look at the bad in all of them, not a one would be good for the office.


[edit on 14-9-2008 by FiatLux]

reply to post by AllSeeingI


This will match very well the issue of Palin abusing her office powers for personal vendetta.

Let me bring back he subject for those that still think this is all about bashing Palin as a public figure.

Alaska police union files complaint against Palin

deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com...

Activist seeks Palin e-mails

articles.latimes.com...

Did Gov Sarah Palin Abuse Her Office?

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Now with that out of the way lets talk about getting in the path of Ms Palin.

When it comes to political candidate is not such thing as character assassinations, because they are the ones that commit the actions that will be scrutinized in the media.

Ms Palin has her own issue that do not show a good picture of her character, specially for somebody that is going to be holding the office of VP and it has a big possibility of becoming President of this nation.

When I first looked upon her credentials for as the Governor of Alaska it seemed to be honest and clear.

But then upon more research is obviously some problems that she created due to her personal handling of family matters.

A person that can not control her temper or demeanor in a public office where he or she is in charge due to personal vendettas can not possible be able to handle the power that a higher office like the VP or president can Bring.

Like I said before I researched Biden and his links to private interest and work for private interest but as usual that is was goes on in Washington.

If Ms Palin shows that she may have a problem controlling her personal Issues and those relating to family, how can she handle issues that will be beyond control relating to the VP office.

I personally have a problem with that and American voters should look very closely to this issues.







[edit on 14-9-2008 by marg6043]

It reads like the local gossip column. In a responsible journalistic piece, I would expect that the other side would have the opportunity to respond to these charges, but this is the NY Times we're talking about. Objectivity? Not necessary. Just throw a little crap against the wall and see what sticks.

The fact that they included Andrew Halcro was the point where I could endure no more. Halcro lost to Palin in '06 and since has a blog online where he criticizes every move she makes. The others? For all any of us know, they have some axe to grind as well. Again, what's the other side of the story? As I said, the NY Times doesn't seem to care. It apparently doesn't fit their agenda.


[edit on 14-9-2008 by vor78]

We've had, at the very least, 2 years to publicly vet the 3 other candidates running for office. And they have been thoroughly vetted by the media and by the public.

The choice of a relative unknown in the last 8 weeks before the election leaves very little time to have the country get to know who this new candidate is. It's their right to fully scour any past political actions that Palin has taken as it give us an idea of how she would act in the office of Vice-President and quite likely the office of President.

This public inquiry and revelation is NOT "sexist" or "unfair". That charge is just distraction.

This article addresses a very important issue and that is cronyism in politics. It seems to me that Palin will be more of the same Bush politics.

It may seem like people are digging up dirt and making things up, but there's nothing stopping people or other papers from proving this incorrect. This behavior from Palin shows something very important. And I am glad we're discovering more of who she is.

reply to post by vor78

Perhaps you missed this:

Ms. Palin declined to grant an interview for this article. The McCain-Palin campaign responded to some questions on her behalf and that of her husband, while referring others to the governor’s spokespeople, who did not respond.

www.nytimes.com...

And whats so gossipy about this:

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

www.nytimes.com...

The NY Times piece does depend on first hand accounts, but that is a feature of investigative journalism. This is not an opinion piece where alleged actions are asserted by unnamed sources.

The accounts mentioned are first hand. Not gossip. There is not one speculative line in the entire five pages of the piece. And the piece itself is not speculative.




[edit on 14-9-2008 by Areal51]

The NYTimes is an Obama slanted paper that pretends to be journalism. How is this allowed under the new rules as a source?

Would I be allowed to post the most recent Rasmussen Report that puts McCain ahead and the accompanying editorials that attempt to interpret the polls on why McCain/Palin are the next best thing since sliced bread?

The excuse for vetting is an euphemism for a chance to smear, nothing more.

The story has a guy who is a known political enemy of Palin as the source, what more is there to be said?