Half-Baked Alaska
Laura McGann has written a really excellent primer on Alaska’s eccentric, corrupt politics for The American Prospect. As far as I can tell, Palin comes out looking clean as a whistle, though this conclusion is only reached begrudgingly.
Palin is a member of the same Republican Party as those ensnared in a corrupt web, but somehow she seems like a completely different political animal. Palin moved into the governor’s mansion in 2006 on a platform of reform and change, having developed a reputation as a whistleblower after calling out the chair of the state GOP and the state’s Republican attorney general on ethics grounds. The answers I received show a candidate who staked her political fortunes on her claims of being a maverick. But while she has avoided some of the worst entanglements of petroleum industry bribery, her fierce sense of family loyalty has landed her in her own hot water.
After noting that Palin challenged the powerful oil interests that dominate Alaska, McGann draws a slightly eccentric comparison between a corrupt oil baron and Palin’s minor-key version of “Troopergate.”
Palin’s problem, though, is not money. In fact, she raised taxes on oil companies in 2007. It was the first of such hikes in the state since 1989. Believe it or not, her troubles look more like Bill Allen’s — the Veco executive who pleaded guilty to bribing state officials. Allen has framed his actions as attempts to do the best thing for his family business. If bending — or breaking — the law was necessary to get the company ahead, he did it. For Allen, Veco and family were interchangeable. His devotion to both was the root of his problem and his downfall.
Palin’s devotion to her own family has landed her in trouble with the state Legislature. A special investigator is looking into whether Palin fired her public-safety commissioner when he wouldn’t oust a state trooper over a longtime family feud. The state trooper, Jim Wooten, was involved in a bitter divorce with Palin’s sister. He was admonished after the Palins filed official complaints, though not fired. Palin revisited the issue when she took office, the safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, claims. Though the full report is not due for three weeks, e-mails from Palin and a tape recording reveal that the governor at least pressured the commissioner to fire Wooten, after she previously denied having done so.
Palin has supposedly tried to stall the investigation, and McGann writes,
Palin’s stall is a serious step away from transparency in the direction of the state’s corrupt lawmakers. Considering her path to power, Palin should know that Alaskans’ toleration of corruption has seriously diminished.
But of course, there is a real and obvious distinction to be drawn between self-dealing financial deals and the Wooten case. As McGann notes earlier in the piece, Alaskan corruption is rooted in the state’s extraction economy — something Alaska has in common with, say, Nigeria, but not Norway. The Wooten case is something you’ll find in virtually any political environment. So the effort to draw these strands together seems like a stretch. This is not to say that the charges against Palin aren’t serious. Far from it. But it is important to note that the Wooten case does not imply that Palin is part of Alaska’s culture of corruption. Rather, it implies that she might have been overzealous in going after a state employee she knew to be an abusive lout — perhaps she should be punished for this somehow, but note how politically important it is to collapse these distinctions.
Josh Marshall insists at great length that the Wooten case reflects a dangerous abuse of power.
Eventually, Palin got fed up and fired Monegan from his job. (Palin claims, not credibly, that she fired Monegan over general differences in law enforcement priorities.) This is an important point. Wooten never got fired. To the best of my knowledge, he’s is still on the job. The central bad act was firing the state’s top police official because he refused to bend to political pressure from the governor and her family to fire a public employee against whom the governor was pursuing a vendetta — whether the vendetta was justified or not.
This is interesting. In an otherwise fairly detailed post, we’re never told exactly why Palin’s claim is “not credible.” Considering that Wooten was never fired — an obvious sign of a quid pro quo — you have to wonder if Palin did sincerely believe that there was a better candidate for the job.
For what it’s worth, I see nothing wrong with investigating this further — it clearly helps the McCain-Palin ticket politically, but that’s not why: Palin should give some accounting of why Monegan was fired. I’ll bet she had a good reason. Having made one error in judgment — raising the issue of Wooten’s employment in the first place — is no reason to make another, namely keeping Monegan in the job if he was not up to the task in Palin’s considered judgment.
For what it’s worth, I see nothing wrong with investigating this further it clearly helps the McCain-Palin ticket politically, but that’s not why: Palin should give some accounting of why Monegan was fired. I’ll bet she had a good reason. Having made one error in judgment — raising the issue of Wooten’s employment in the first place — is no reason to make another, namely keeping Monegan in the job if he was not up to the task in Palin’s considered judgment.
Yes, but it’s also a question of great relevance whether Palin would have held another trooper who was not her personal enemy to equal standards of scrutiny. That seems very unlikely, to me, and it is of equal dispositive value to the qualifications of the trooper in question.
— Freddie · Sep 9, 07:54 PM · #
The e-mails I’ve seen are the opposite of treating Wooten differently. Palin seems to be saying that she wants greater trooper accountability because she doesn’t want future events like Wooten involving other troopers.
Wooten was a member of a police union, which is why he wasn’t disciplined that strongly in the first place. I seriously doubt that either Palin or Monahan had the ability to fire Wooten.
Caveat: I could easily be wrong — this is detail-heavy, and the kind of thing where any assumption by anyone has a good chance of being proven wrong.
— J Mann · Sep 9, 09:17 PM · #
I’m not sure I’m feelin’ this “least corrupt politician in Alaska = Reformer” argument.
There just seems too much in her record regarding the Bridge to Nowhere and earmarks to make a remotely plausible case for the Reformer meme. I mean, maybe another Alaskan politician would have gotten $40 million for their town of 6000 instead of $27 million, but I don’t see how it matters.
RE: Wooten, the part that bothers me is lawyering up and obstructing the investigation once she got the nomination, when she had promised to cooperate fully. That strikes me as pretty cynical. I don’t presume anything serious will be found, but it just reminds me too much of the Bush/Cheney approach to investigations for comfort.
Not my idea of “reform”.
— J.W. Hamner · Sep 9, 09:24 PM · #
I’ll admit that I’m somewhat dense on the thought processes of conservatives, but I’m trying to understand this earmark business. Someone straighten me out if I’m getting this wrong. It’s bad to “earmark” (i.e. have a Congressman specifically identify the use of an otherwise general appropriation), but it’s reform to send the same amount of money to the state so that the governor and legislature can use it as they please. Is this really what we’re arguing about or am I missing something important here?
— Steven Donegal · Sep 9, 09:38 PM · #
I don’t have a clue as to whether or not Palin misused her office with her brother-in-law. If she did, she can/should take the hit. However, I saw an interview with the ex-brother-in-law on TV a couple of days ago where he admitted to tasering his son … but said it was a “youthful indiscretion”. Sure sounds like he might not be the greatest person for a state trooper.
— usr105 · Sep 9, 09:48 PM · #
1) Regarding the lawyering up, IMHO her main problem is that the legislative inquiry is run by a prominent Obama backer who refuses to turn the inquiry over to someone neutral and has promised to get a report out shortly before the election. I would be nervous, even if I wasn’t guilty.
2) Regarding the taser, it was incredibly bad judgment, but not (quite) as bad as it sounds. The stepson told investigators that he asked to have the test setting used on him, and apparently the test setting basically feels like your funny bone going off, not the blinding pain of the main setting. Dumb, and worth discipline, but not nearly as bad as telling his wife that if her father helped her get a divorce lawyer, Wooten would kill him.
— J Mann · Sep 9, 10:05 PM · #
<i>Yes, but it’s also a question of great relevance whether Palin would have held another trooper who was not her personal enemy to equal standards of scrutiny.</i>
OK, so find another Alaska state trooper who made death threats and was a drunk driver, and who did so with Palin’s knowledge and acquiescence. Otherwise, your insinuation is baseless.
— Stuart Buck · Sep 9, 10:13 PM · #
OK, so find another Alaska state trooper who made death threats and was a drunk driver, and who did so with Palin’s knowledge and acquiescence. Otherwise, your insinuation is baseless.
No, you’re wrong. Here’s a simple thought experiment: what if a liberal Democratic governor started examining the records of his personal enemies among the state police force? What would you say then. You’d be railing against it, of course. If you aren’t applying equal levels of discretion and criticism to everyone else as you are to your personal enemies, you’re abusing your power. Full stop.
— Freddie · Sep 9, 10:24 PM · #
“but it just reminds me too much of the Bush/Cheney approach to investigations for comfort.”
Anybody who says that without also saying Clinton/Gore could save himself a lot of words by simply saying, “Don’t take me seriously. I don’t mean anything I say.”
— The Spokesrider · Sep 9, 10:40 PM · #
Nope, wrong. If a state trooper made death threats and was a drunk driver, and a Democratic governor were caught saying, “wow, this guy deserves more than a 5-day suspension,” I wouldn’t be pretending to be scandalized. Next question?
— Stuart Buck · Sep 9, 11:33 PM · #
let me see, Alaska politics are dirty but Chicago politics are what? If I recall, it was the corruption of Chicago politics that stole the election for JFK. If this is all you have on Palin, I think the liberals who “chose” Obama are in trouble.
— jwbe · Sep 9, 11:40 PM · #
First, I am from a “small southern state” and the Highway Pat. (HP) was started, not to write speeding tickets, but to provide security for the gov. (1920’s and 30’s) Real gangsters were about. They were fired for anything the gov did not like.
For proof, watch after a big game with the Univ. of Alabama, etc and you will see 4 HP officers right with the coach, no matter what the score, and they always from the same state as the coach, even (esp.) on away games.
It is only because of the union and the head of the BUT, if the dems and repubs, might postpone, because they want her out of Alaska, so business as usual can restart.
dat’s my $.02
— dat · Sep 10, 12:17 AM · #
Thanks for writing this. It’s good to see a conservative take on some of the more serious concerns about Palin.
That said, I don’t agree with much of the post. Key points that seem off to me:
“Palin has supposedly tried to stall the investigation,”
Why supposedly? She promised to cooperate, then ditched that promise after being nominated to be vice president. She is trying to have the venue of the investigation changed by launching an ethics complaint against herself. The new venue unsurprisingly is staffed by her appointees. And all of a sudden, her aide is not willing to testify either.
“We’re never told exactly why Palin’s claim is “not credible.”
Well, first she claimed that her administration had not pressured Monegan. She then was forced to acknowledge more than 20 calls from her administration to the Department on the subject. See here.
Beyond that, Palin has offered an explanation for firing Monegan. Unfortunately, that explanation that he was not serious enough about pursuing bootlegging in rural Alaska was directly contradicted by her own earlier comment that he had focused on that issue. Check out the clip here.
That leaves the argument that because she was pursuing a good cause, we should not care. I’d suggest the fact that she is trying to cover up her actions tells us that neither she nor John McCain agree.
Tom
— Tom G. · Sep 10, 12:56 AM · #
“Anybody who says that without also saying Clinton/Gore could save himself a lot of words by simply saying, “Don’t take me seriously. I don’t mean anything I say.””
I love that conservatives still scream BILL CLINTON! when they don’t have an argument. It’s kind of cute. Sad, but cute. That’s basically Hitchens’ route, right? Palin roxxors because… uhm… I got… uhm… damn… HEY LOOK! BILL CLINTON!!!
Seriously though… you can call it Clinton/Gore politics if you want, but it’s an entirely cynical approach and there is nothing REFORM about it.
That’s the whole point. All the evidence points to regular, though gifted, politician, except more corrupt because she’s from Alaska.
— J.W. Hamner · Sep 10, 01:21 AM · #
Dear 8 pounds 6 ounces baby Jesus, new born, not even spoken a word yet. Dear Lord baby Jesus, lyin’ there in your ghost manger in yer gold’n diaper, just lookin’ at your Baby Einstein developmental videos, learnin’ ‘bout shapes and colors. I would like to thank you for bringin’ me and my mama together, and also that my kids no longer sound like retarded gang-bangers. Also please give us a pipeline and save us from all the Mooslims. Amen.”
— jr ewing · Sep 10, 01:37 AM · #
Uhm. Lets leave the two times he was caught in his patrol car drinking beer.
Let’s also leave aside the fact he promised to murder a man ( Palin’s father ) and was given three written warnings over.
Do you realize you are trying to defend a police officer who TAZERED his 11 year old step son with GOVERNMENT issued equipment?
Now ask yourself … if a police officer in your town TAZERED an 11 year old boy as a means of discipline …
would you want your force to give him a gun and place him in control of a conflict on the streets?
Or would you be saying it is a bad shoot ( MURDER ) just waiting to happen?
Again .. I repeat … if a police officer in YOUR TOWN … tazered his 11 year old son with department issued equipment.
Would you consider a 3-day suspension appropriate?
Hell here in California. The guy would be under full Internal Affairs investigation, suspended while psychiatric evaluations where performed, and be off the force.
Now add one other twist.
If that was YOUR nephew that a police officer TAZERED with department issued equipment.
What rock or stone would YOU leave unturned to keep tazers and guns with bullets out of his hands?
— chrome · Sep 10, 02:22 AM · #
chrome:
I don’t see anyone in this thread defending Wooten’s alleged actions: at most I’d like for Republicans, like you, to acknowledge that life isn’t THUNDERDOME.
There’s like laws and stuff.
— J.W. Hamner · Sep 10, 02:35 AM · #
I want the old the American Scene back.
— cw · Sep 10, 02:36 AM · #
Palin obviously fired Monegan because he would not add dismissal to the penalties already imposed upon Wooten (a point often forgotten: Wooten had been disciplined, but that was not enough for Palin). To contend otherwise is to return to the cradle — where so much of the American electorate obviously belongs.
— Mandy · Sep 10, 02:51 AM · #
“For proof, watch after a big game with the Univ. of Alabama, etc and you will see 4 HP officers right with the coach, no matter what the score, and they always from the same state as the coach, even (esp.) on away games.”
Interesting that you said that. My wife is a big MSU Spartans fan and lately we get to one or maybe even two games a year. In other words I’m not extremely knowledgeable about what happens at college football games. But last year we went to the opening game against University of Alabama – Birmingham, and I noticed that when the visiting team ran out onto the field and to the sidelines, so did an out-of-state trooper with a smokey-the-bear hat. I wondered what that was all about.
I only remember seeing one of them, not four.
— The Spokesrider · Sep 10, 02:54 AM · #
“I love that conservatives still scream BILL CLINTON! when they don’t have an argument. It’s kind of cute. Sad, but cute. That’s basically Hitchens’ route, right? Palin roxxors because… uhm… I got… uhm… damn… HEY LOOK! BILL CLINTON!!!”
Yeah, that’s how they defended Clinton in the 1990s. Glad to see they haven’t lost the touch. Now the same people who are coming on with that line are pretending to be all moralistic about Sarah Palin’s scandals. What a bunch of frauds.
“Seriously though… you can call it Clinton/Gore politics if you want, but it’s an entirely cynical approach and there is nothing REFORM about it.”
If we don’t acknowledge that the Clinton/Gore scandals basically gave rise to the Bush/Cheney ones, that one set is basically a continuation of other, what exactly is the point of trying to stop any Sarah Palin scandals before they get to the White House?
I’ll repeat: What is the point?
— The Spokesrider · Sep 10, 03:00 AM · #
Perspective, please. It’s time to Fringe-blog.
— Sanjay · Sep 10, 01:20 PM · #
If we spend the rest of the election attending to Palin, then we’re going to spend the next four years attending to her as well. Can’t wait.
— JA · Sep 10, 02:17 PM · #
Look Reihan.
Palin as CinC is simply a ludicrous proposition.
Please acknowledge that.
Palin’s popularity is simple tribalism.
Palin is the avatar for her tribe.
There are more cudlips than l33ts, so the cudlips may well win.
Sadly, the thing that will most disqualify Palin for the office is her height, if it ever becomes apparent.
This is an American Idol election.
The cudlips arent voting for McCain, hes a l33t, exploiting tribalism to exercise a will to power just like Rove.
— matoko_chan · Sep 10, 02:34 PM · #
matoko_chan,
Would you consider defining for this pathetic old GenXer what you mean exactly by l33t? And then go to Wikipedia.com and update the entry as a public service. You’ve used this term here rather freely and, even in the context of over a dozen posts, I can make no sense of what you think “l33t” means.
You consider yourself to be part of the l33t demographic, and now reveal that John McCain is there along with you. Wikipedia still thinks that the term is an artillery type.
Please enlighten us foggies.
— Mobile Reader · Sep 10, 04:03 PM · #
apolos, MR.
lets define l33ts (elites) as those gifted intellectually or otherwise by the genes, to be on the rightside of the bellcurve, the highend of the spectrum of physical attractiveness, the eloquent and charming speakers, the fashion models and moviestars.
On the other side are the cudlips (borrowed from Morgan’s scifi novels), the profoundly average middleclassers that are the modern day incarnations of Jefferson’s noble Yeoman Farmers.
The saddest thing about this election is that it has devolved so horribly into the American Idol election.
It is not about a vote for who can run this country the best, but whose tribal avatar can deliver the best swag to their tribe.
— matoko_chan · Sep 10, 05:46 PM · #
matoko_chan,
Ahh, so “l3tts” = “elites.” How incredibly simple.
Why not just say “elites?” I suppose that “l33ts” saves you one character, but by the time I hit the “shift” key twice, I really don’t come out ahead.
Don’t you kids realize that this sort of stylistic silliness came in and out of fashion several times long before WWII, several decades before either of us were born? That petty tribalistic jargon doesn’t advance your arguments, but rather just makes you seem obscure (in the ridiculous, not the serious way).
If you just use the basic OED spellings and grammar (or a reasonable approximation thereof), then you have a chance of expanding your arguments beyond your cliquish echo chambor.
Or is the use of such bizarre, non-obvious locutions as “3llts” specifically intended to filter out us small-brained “cudlips?”
I believe that you aren’t a pathetic poseur, thus I really don’t grok what you’re trying to accomplish.
— Mobile Reader · Sep 10, 06:25 PM · #
srsly, note my supreme indifference to wat u think of my haxxor and l33tspk.
Would you prefer i called them cudlips, yeoman farmers, or 40percenters?
(meaning the 40% of the bellcurve on the left side of the mean excluding the the 10% in the tail, equivalent to functional retardation.)
the last thing my grandfather ever said to me was “always vote republican.”
Id have to have a self adminned pre-frontal lobotomy to do that nowadays.
Palin was a supremely cynical choice.
The avatar of the theocons.
— matoko_chan · Sep 10, 08:45 PM · #
Well, matoko_chan, that clears it up. Thankful we can be to have uebermenschen such as yourself, Brooks, Obama, etc. to protect us cudlips and functional retards from ourselves.
BTW, seeing as you acknowledge McCain as an “l33t,” how do you account for his appointment of the “avatar of the theocons.” Wouldn’t this disqualify him by definition from uebermensch status? Surely, a man who’s never used email would have even more trouble deciphering your Meta-Thetan level missives than I have.
— Mobile Reader · Sep 10, 09:31 PM · #
dur, McCain is a septugenarian egomaniac.
look at his previous policy positions, “agents of intolerance”?
all he cares about is teh win, for certainly a younger candidate would have served his party and country far better in this election.
Palin is a cynical choice designed to exploit the cudlips.
“Thankful we can be to have uebermenschen such as yourself, Brooks, Obama, etc. to protect us cudlips and functional retards from ourselves.”
You left out Thomas Jefferson……was than oversight?
lol!
— matoko_chan · Sep 11, 04:00 PM · #