• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

McCain-Palin - caught again

fff

Well-known member
This is what? her fourth excuse for firing this guy? She needs to get started working on excuse #5, 'cause this one isn't holding water. :roll:

An internal government document obtained by ABC News appears to contradict Sarah Palin's most recent explanation for why she fired her public safety chief, the move which prompted the now-contested state probe into "Troopergate."

Fighting back against allegations she may have fired her then-Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, for refusing to go along with a personal vendetta, Palin on Monday argued in a legal filing that she fired Monegan because he had a "rogue mentality" and was bucking her administration's directives.

"The last straw," her lawyer argued, came when he planned a trip to Washington, D.C., to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. The project, expected to cost from $10 million to $20 million a year for five years, would have been the first of its kind in Alaska, which leads the nation in reported forcible rape.

The McCain-Palin campaign echoed the charge in a press release it distributed Monday, concurrent with Palin's legal filing. "Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.," the release stated.

But the governor's staff authorized the trip, according to an internal travel document from the Department of Public Safety, released Friday in response to an open records request.

The document, a state travel authorization form, shows that Palin's chief of staff, Mike Nizich, approved Monegan's trip to Washington, D.C., "to attend meeting with Senator Murkowski." The date next to Nizich's signature reads June 18.

In response to inquiries about the document Friday, the McCain-Palin campaign provided a statement from Randy Ruaro, another aide to Palin.

According to Ruaro, Monegan asked for -- and received -- approval for the travel without telling Palin's staff his reason for going. "As a matter of routine, the travel was approved by Mike Nizich ... weeks before the actual purpose was made clear by former Commissioner Monegan," Ruaro wrote.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5844710&page=1
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
McSame/Palin= 4 more years of Bush/Cheney lies, stonewalling, "we're above the law" attitude, and secrecy and back room dealing... :( :(
 

fff

Well-known member
Thankfully the more people know about her, the less they like her. On 9/11 her approval ratings were 52% positive and 35% negative. By the 19th, approval was down to 41% and her disapproval up to 46. There has simply been no good news for this woman since McCain named her as his running mate. She maintains high popularity among the right wingnuts, but there really aren't a lot of them around. There seems to be a growing understanding among the rest of the voters that McCain picked someone to help him get elected, not to run the country. That says more about McCain than Palin.

It's not like there aren't well-qualified Republican women (not under some sort of investigation) that McCain could have chosen. IMO, the Palin pick reflects badly on McCain's judgment.

The good news for them is that people are showing up in larger numbers to greet the McCain-Palin ticket. The bad news is that after Sarah Palin introduces McCain, people start leaving. They've cancelled a bunch of Palin appearances around the country. I wonder why?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You libs make me laugh - this pretention of standards that you're showing. You're like 10,000 gophers trying to dig up something on Palin when Obama has Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Infanticide and a whole bunch more unaccepatable crap right on the surface!

You have standards of (W)right and wrong for candidates? Puhleeeeeze.

fff wants to talk about well-qualified Republican women when she can't give qualification 1 on Obama? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff wants to talk about well-qualified Republican women when she can't give qualification 1 on Obama? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:

And you're full of bull. Several people on this board have said why Obama is qualified to be president. You don't like the reasons, so you keep saying no one can give you his qualifications. It's BS on your part and everyone who's paying attention to this board knows it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
fff wants to talk about well-qualified Republican women when she can't give qualification 1 on Obama? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:

And you're full of bull. Several people on this board have said why Obama is qualified to be president. You don't like the reasons, so you keep saying no one can give you his qualifications. It's BS on your part and everyone who's paying attention to this board knows it.

Yeah, here's the qualification that was brought,"Because he isn't John McCain" :lol: :lol: :lol: I guess that qualifes Palin to be president, doesn't it? If she meets the Democrat qualfications to be president, wouldn't that automatically qualify her for the lesser position of vp? So then why are you saying she isn't qualified?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
This is what? her fourth excuse for firing this guy? She needs to get started working on excuse #5, 'cause this one isn't holding water. :roll:

An internal government document obtained by ABC News appears to contradict Sarah Palin's most recent explanation for why she fired her public safety chief, the move which prompted the now-contested state probe into "Troopergate."

Fighting back against allegations she may have fired her then-Public Safety Commissioner, Walt Monegan, for refusing to go along with a personal vendetta, Palin on Monday argued in a legal filing that she fired Monegan because he had a "rogue mentality" and was bucking her administration's directives.

"The last straw," her lawyer argued, came when he planned a trip to Washington, D.C., to seek federal funds for an aggressive anti-sexual-violence program. The project, expected to cost from $10 million to $20 million a year for five years, would have been the first of its kind in Alaska, which leads the nation in reported forcible rape.

The McCain-Palin campaign echoed the charge in a press release it distributed Monday, concurrent with Palin's legal filing. "Mr. Monegan persisted in planning to make the unauthorized lobbying trip to D.C.," the release stated.

But the governor's staff authorized the trip, according to an internal travel document from the Department of Public Safety, released Friday in response to an open records request.

The document, a state travel authorization form, shows that Palin's chief of staff, Mike Nizich, approved Monegan's trip to Washington, D.C., "to attend meeting with Senator Murkowski." The date next to Nizich's signature reads June 18.

In response to inquiries about the document Friday, the McCain-Palin campaign provided a statement from Randy Ruaro, another aide to Palin.

According to Ruaro, Monegan asked for -- and received -- approval for the travel without telling Palin's staff his reason for going. "As a matter of routine, the travel was approved by Mike Nizich ... weeks before the actual purpose was made clear by former Commissioner Monegan," Ruaro wrote.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5844710&page=1

I have not seen 4 reasons, did you just make that number up? You been taking online accuracy lessons from OT?
 

fff

Well-known member
Oh? How many reasons have you heard? That's why I put the ? in the question because I don't know the latest count. But it seems to be going up. A fairly simple search gets you:

1. Palin said the big reason that she'd let him go was because he had failed to address alcohol abuse in rural Alaska.

2. He wasn't filling vacant positions, improving recruitment in the state police ranks.

3. During a press conference she defended her firing of Monegan by saying he was asking for lawmakers for too much money. However records from the State Legislative Finance Division, show Governor Palin proposed a $7.3 million increase to the public safety department budget but the legislature reduced the amount to $6.4 million.

4. "an escalating pattern of insubordination on budget and other key policy issues."

Yet with all of the above, she offered him another state job when she fired him!
 

hopalong

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
fff wants to talk about well-qualified Republican women when she can't give qualification 1 on Obama? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll: :roll:

And you're full of bull. Several people on this board have said why Obama is qualified to be president. You don't like the reasons, so you keep saying no one can give you his qualifications. It's BS on your part and everyone who's paying attention to this board knows it.

But the one who has been asked the most is YOU yet you avoid the question because you can't see the forest for the trees, you have been caught in so many lies in the past you are afraid to make any statement other than cut and paste, This is not CAB fff this is for real!!!!
You want others to speak for you and that is obvious because you do not have the intelligence to speak for your self and like always you resort to letting them cover your back, seems to me you back is getting bigger and fewer ar trying to cover it.
You are such a loser here as well on the cattlemans board no one takes you serious any more! Big difference you can't seem to be able to delete or lock post that show your REAL self on here like you do in cattlemans, and oldtimer does on here..
getting to be more and more like oldtimer has no objective anlylonger other than cut and paste and copy jokes that he probabally doesn't event undertstand
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
fff said:
Oh? How many reasons have you heard? That's why I put the ? in the question because I don't know the latest count. But it seems to be going up. A fairly simple search gets you:

1. Palin said the big reason that she'd let him go was because he had failed to address alcohol abuse in rural Alaska.

2. He wasn't filling vacant positions, improving recruitment in the state police ranks.

3. During a press conference she defended her firing of Monegan by saying he was asking for lawmakers for too much money. However records from the State Legislative Finance Division, show Governor Palin proposed a $7.3 million increase to the public safety department budget but the legislature reduced the amount to $6.4 million.

4. "an escalating pattern of insubordination on budget and other key policy issues."

Yet with all of the above, she offered him another state job when she fired him!

Sounds like your number 4 pretty well covers all of them. I have fired many people in my life and rarely fired anyone over one issue they generally were repeat offenders and escalated in their patter of insubordination!

So if you look at your number 4 reason you could see why all the rest of them could be true! So in essence she only gave one reason but listed numerous events that led to making that one decision.

Come on you guys are grasping this is so easy, This woman must be better than us Conservatives think because you Libs are getting pretty lame in your attacks. All the while you shun off the serious things that Obama has done! :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Oh? How many reasons have you heard? That's why I put the ? in the question because I don't know the latest count. But it seems to be going up. A fairly simple search gets you:

1. Palin said the big reason that she'd let him go was because he had failed to address alcohol abuse in rural Alaska.

2. He wasn't filling vacant positions, improving recruitment in the state police ranks.

3. During a press conference she defended her firing of Monegan by saying he was asking for lawmakers for too much money. However records from the State Legislative Finance Division, show Governor Palin proposed a $7.3 million increase to the public safety department budget but the legislature reduced the amount to $6.4 million.

4. "an escalating pattern of insubordination on budget and other key policy issues."

Yet with all of the above, she offered him another state job when she fired him!

Sounds like your number 4 pretty well covers all of them. I have fired many people in my life and rarely fired anyone over one issue they generally were repeat offenders and escalated in their patter of insubordination!

So if you look at your number 4 reason you could see why all the rest of them could be true! So in essence she only gave one reason but listed numerous events that led to making that one decision.

Come on you guys are grasping this is so easy, This woman must be better than us Conservatives think because you Libs are getting pretty lame in your attacks. All the while you shun off the serious things that Obama has done! :roll:

Then walk in- in front of the Legislative Investigator- be sworn- and tell why....Its simple---unless you have something to hide... :(
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Everybody has something to hide when the judge has a conflict of interest against you. Palin's problem isn't testifying, it's who she has to testify to.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
fff said:
Oh? How many reasons have you heard? That's why I put the ? in the question because I don't know the latest count. But it seems to be going up. A fairly simple search gets you:

1. Palin said the big reason that she'd let him go was because he had failed to address alcohol abuse in rural Alaska.

2. He wasn't filling vacant positions, improving recruitment in the state police ranks.

3. During a press conference she defended her firing of Monegan by saying he was asking for lawmakers for too much money. However records from the State Legislative Finance Division, show Governor Palin proposed a $7.3 million increase to the public safety department budget but the legislature reduced the amount to $6.4 million.

4. "an escalating pattern of insubordination on budget and other key policy issues."

Yet with all of the above, she offered him another state job when she fired him!

Sounds like your number 4 pretty well covers all of them. I have fired many people in my life and rarely fired anyone over one issue they generally were repeat offenders and escalated in their patter of insubordination!

So if you look at your number 4 reason you could see why all the rest of them could be true! So in essence she only gave one reason but listed numerous events that led to making that one decision.

Come on you guys are grasping this is so easy, This woman must be better than us Conservatives think because you Libs are getting pretty lame in your attacks. All the while you shun off the serious things that Obama has done! :roll:

Then walk in- in front of the Legislative Investigator- be sworn- and tell why....Its simple---unless you have something to hide... :(

Has she been subpoenaed to appear before the investigator?

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't she the one that asked for this investigation originally? Not sure but thought I read that somewhere?

I am sure if she breaks the law she will be punished! Let me know when she does break it please!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
She- her husband- and her aides say they will not honor subpeonas...

Shes pulling a Bush/Cheney/Rove tactic-- stonewalling...So much for being open and transparent with the legislative branch or the public... :(
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
She- her husband- and her aides say they will not honor subpeonas...

Shes pulling a Bush/Cheney/Rove tactic-- stonewalling...So much for being open and transparent with the legislative branch or the public... :(



CONFLICT OF INTEREST
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
She- her husband- and her aides say they will not honor subpeonas...

Shes pulling a Bush/Cheney/Rove tactic-- stonewalling...So much for being open and transparent with the legislative branch or the public... :(



CONFLICT OF INTEREST

You got that right- her interest is getting elected V.P. by hook or by crook-and getting the truth out now could conflict with that... :wink: :(

McCain/Palin = 4 more years of Bush/Cheney lies and deception....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
She- her husband- and her aides say they will not honor subpeonas...

Shes pulling a Bush/Cheney/Rove tactic-- stonewalling...So much for being open and transparent with the legislative branch or the public... :(



CONFLICT OF INTEREST

You got that right- her interest is getting elected V.P. by hook or by crook-and getting the truth out now could conflict with that... :wink: :(

McCain/Palin = 4 more years of Bush/Cheney lies and deception....

You know dang well what I'm talking about, OT. When the people in charge of the investigation are Obama supporters and Obama donors, they have a vested interest in making Palin look as bad as they can. You KNOW this is a conflict of interest, so don't make me come up there kick your ass! I'm not that far away.

:wink:
 

don

Well-known member
it doesn't matter. just putting her in this position is effective. it gives the press something to chew on.
 
Top