U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 10, 2008 06:08 PM UTC

After Further Investigation, I Decided I'm Not Guilty

  • 76 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Gotta love this story from The Associated Press, including the headline: “Palin Pre-Empts State Report, Clears Self.”

Trying to head off a potentially embarrassing state ethics report on GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, campaign officials released their own report Thursday that clears her of any wrongdoing.

Sen. John McCain’s running mate is the subject of a legislative investigation into whether she abused her power as governor by firing her public safety commissioner. The commissioner, Walter Monegan, says he was dismissed in July for resisting pressure from Palin’s husband, Todd Palin, and numerous top aides to fire state trooper Mike Wooten, Palin’s former brother-in-law.

The move came hours after the state Supreme Court refused to halt the ethics investigation. Lawmakers were expected to release their own findings Friday.

Tweet
Share

Comments

76 thoughts on “After Further Investigation, I Decided I’m Not Guilty”

  1. that she was solid.  Her family was solid. Her views on foreign affairs was solid.

    She is the pride of the GOP.  Of course she is innocent.

    As my Dad used say, “They lie like rugs.”(He was a Southern man and had more sayings than I can remember – I miss my Dad)

    Today will be interesting in the news, stocks are crashing and Palin is going down.

  3. There is something unethical conducting an “investigation” by partisan Democrats just a few months before an election.

    If you think this “investigation” is anything other then a partisan attempt to keep people from McCain/Palin – you are an idiot!

    2. wasn’t the investigation started before McCain made his thoughtful, deeply well-considered, thoroughly-vetted choice of Ms. Palin?  No, of course you knew that it was!

      July 28: Palin investigation announced by bipartisan Legislative Council of the Alaska state legislature.  The Council votes 12-0 (6 Dems, 6 R’s) to start the investigation by hiring a private, independent investigator.

      August 29: McCain announces Palin VP pick.

      October 10: Report is complete, finished by the private, independent investigator that six Republicans agreed to hire, but now those R’s are trying to keep its results sealed.

      Wow I just engaged with Nancy L B.  Must be the moon phase or something.

    3. The committee is made-up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.  The committee voted to begin the investigation over a month before Gov. Palin was picked for the VP nomination.  The investigation was never motivated by partisan politcs, espcially since the Republicans voted to initiate it.

        1. there are more Republicans on the investigating panel than there are Democrats.  

          I can understand how Ms. Baldwin might think that it is a “partisan witchhunt” given the reluctance of Republicans to hold their fellow party members accountable for wrongdoing, but in this case it appears as though Ms. Palin had the misfortune of having a couple ethical Republicans (the last few in a species that is nearly extinct) in a position to exercise oversight who are actully willing to do it.

            1. I believe the council is 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans caucusing with Democrats, and 3 Republicans pouting in the corner.

              Yet they all, every single one of them, voted to initiate the investigation.  Partisan witch-hunt my ass.

      3. Republicans are ideologues who have no use for facts or firm data. That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in. Look how this administartion handles science.

        Didn’t some 50+ nobel laureates just back Obama decrying this administartions abuse of science?

      4. to this troll?

        Hello.  Like whack-a-moll it only pops up when the discussion is national or McCain related.

        Aren’t there signs in the zoo not to fed the whackos.

        2. I realized that (1) there will probably be some first time visitors each day between now and the election; and (2) while some of the stuff is harmless demagoguery, some of it is part of a coordinated misinformation campaign that people tend to believe if not confronted with the truth.  Yesterday’s birth certificate nonsense as a prime example.

          Both campaigns stretch the truth and exaggerate and that’s unfortunately to be expected, but this person uses strategic falsehoods designed to get people to vote out of ignorance, and there has to be a line there.

          1. What if someone looking for information stumbles onto this page and assumes that the silence is a concession?

            If you force a troll to source, they’ll shut up.  If you source, they’ll shut up.  Nancy has never, not once, responded to one of my posts.

            1. Sorry to make you feel so lonely.  I wasn’t aware that you said anything intelligent.  I will go out of my way to read the stuff you type and if it is worthy of a response – I will get right on it.

              Hope that makes you feel better now.

              1. What about it Pols?

                Do you think that different points of view enhances visits by new people or the same old people echoing the same sentiment over and over like a hollow echo chamber?

                I think one of the reasons Pols is successful is because they have limited tolerance for other points of view.

                Although, my old handle was blocked and I couldn’t get on anymore with it.

                1. Although its exhausting having to counterbalance calculated attempts, not to convince people of a viewpoint, but to entice people to hold false beliefs and vote upon them, it is, in fact, the price we pay for free speech.

                3. People have their logins blocked because they fail to stay within the rules of the site.  Considering your posts, I can believe it of you.

                  Self-policing blog rating systems like those on Daily Kos and other sites originated with blog software like Slashcode (which runs slashdot.org) and Scoop (the ancestor of Daily Kos’s code, originated at kuro5hin.org) to help users better manage the massive posting volume at large sites.

                  Troll-rating isn’t censorship for two reasons. First, you are using a privately owned website; if you don’t like the site rules, go elsewhere.  Second, the code running ColoradoPols – Soapblox – allows all users to read “hidden” (troll-rated) comments with the click of a button; additionally, because of the community rating system, hidden posts can be made visible again if enough users recommend the post to offset the troll ratings.  There are similar mechanisms on almost all sites using ratings systems to abbreviate or hide posts.

              3. If you can’t function without hiding someone’s comments, then you don’t belong here. That censorship bullshit has Kos’s following by Democrats tanking, his page hits are down, diaries written per day are down and has earned that blog a shitty reputation.

                Seriously, if you need “trusted user status” and “troll ratings”…you need to blog somewhere else.  

                  1. Learn how to read a comment thread. You’re replying to the wrong person.

                    Hell, I’m still waiting for you to provide links to a question of mine from days ago. Good thing I didn’t hold my breath waiting for you to offer substantiated proof.  

                  1. It shows per month how many hits the site has. The numbers are shit, particularly for a Democratic blog one month before one of the biggest elections in history. Yes, DKos still posts huge numbers compared to places like this but there is a clear trend that shows the numbers steadily declining as more and more people are run off the site or banned.

                    Yes, Nancy is a stupid troll bitch but so what? Who gives a shit? Like I need her comment hidden by a “trusted user” or else I might go blind if I read it?

                    Fuck. Give me a break. (My rant is not aimed at you. It’s aimed at those that are so used to blogging at a site that censors that they cannot function outside of it.)

                    1. I don’t blog on Kos so I have no idea how it works, but I take your word for it if you know firsthand how troll rating effects participation.  This is the only site I blog on.

                      And all of these trolls will be gone in a few weeks anyway – I can wait until then.

                    2. You’ve been around for quite awhile. You know it works. They’ll all crawl back under their rocks in about 28 days. 🙂

              4. I think troll-rating has the potential for major abuse on a multi-partisan site like this.

                dKos and SquareState are partisan Dem sites.  Chances are, if someone gives you a TR for the ideas in your post, someone else will come along and “rescue” it from oblivion with a Recommendation.

                On Pols, there’s too much of a possibility that a heated argument could turn into a Troll-Rating war.  IMHO.

                1. I wish Nancy had an original thought, but we see that is not going to happen.

                  Thus, the issue.  Most days all is good, one or two good Fuck You’s (I love that word, so many meanings)but on other days we become so bogged down with stupidity it takes away from what we are doing here.

                  I get that if we let lies stand those new to pols many take it as gospel, but if you are new and you come back at least couple days you get the flow.

                  Cenorship is not the way – what happens if all of you decide you heard enough from me and LB and Dabee sent me packing? I would be sad.  🙂

                  1. But then I don’t think people should respond to Nancy either.

                    I guess it makes them feel good.  The downside is that it makes him/her/it feel good.

                    People should use their heads before they respond to a troll.

                    If you win an argument with a moron, what does it prove?  That you’re smarter than a moron?

      5. Fucking liar.

        Prove your claim that the investigation is being conducted entirely by Dems. You can’t. There is no proof for it. You made it up in your own Newport Beach, California mind.

    1. Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.  

        1. that Gov. Palin bucked in her own party and some partisan Democrats.  Yep.  Those guys.

          You know Gov. Palin wasn’t popular with people in her own party because she pointed out some of the misdeeds they were committing.

          In fact some of the nastiest rumors are being started by the people in her party that she fought.  But, when you are a true maverick that is the price you pay.

          I’d rather still be voting for the mavs.

          1. you’re awesome.

            did you pick up the mav’rik meme the first time Palin regurgitated it or only after she had said it for the 300th time?  

            McCain’s also a mav’rik because he disagrees with W about climate change.  i think i’ll go barf now.

          2. Anybody with any experience in cow country knows that a maverick is simply a critter without enough sense to find its way home. I can see where that would appeal to the likes of Ms. Baldwin.Personally, I’d like some leadership with a sense of direction.

            Again Ms. Baldwin were I you I’d be careful with statements about weeding out stupidity or vacuuming the gene pool. you never know when you might get caught in the undertow.

            I’d say you’ve got a trough patch coming accomodating yourself to an Obama presidency but at least you’ll have some idea of how those of us in the reality-based community felt these last eight years.

        2. This Palin deal is clearly not important; with dozens of investigators, they would have found something by now if there was anything to find!

          What about Obama proclaiming himself a moderate? Does anyone honestly believe he’ll lower your taxes? He’s never done it before; just keep HOPING!

    2. Either that, or your reading comprehension is a bit short: the article notes no large-scale or systemic effort, and none at all on the part of the Obama campaign.  Or maybe it’s a problem with word definition: “fraudulent fundraising” implies that the fundraising effort itself is a fraud; that’s obviously not true.

      How does a campaign that is taking in hundreds of millions of dollars in mostly small donations effectively weed through all the contributions made online, in realtime?  Especially since I’m guessing they don’t do the initial processing themselves but rather go through a transaction provider.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

69 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!