With an 80+ % approval rating in Alaska Sarah has got to be doing something right. About trooper gate…her brother-in-law was a police officer and he threatened to kill family members with his service revolver…now who here thinks he shouldn’t have been fired? Is this the trooper gate people are talking about?
Um, I doubt he threatened to kill family members, that certainly wasn’t an original contention. He claims he’s been stalked by them, his transgressions (some of which are real, as he was hardly an “exemplary” trooper) --as reported to the dismissed commissioner in question-- had been known about by the Palins prior to the divorce proceedings and only became a problem once the lawyers started in. Nobody seems to have had a problem with this wingnut until the sister-in-law’s marriage hit the skids…
At least Palin didn’t do Drugs, and Marawanna (however it’s spelt) and COCAINE, like Obama…Palin is clean and fresh like the snow in Alaska…
LOL…Most husbands or Ex husbands dont threaten the lives of their spouses or ex spouses until after the divorce, or while going thru it. I believe this is a non issue with Sarah and its just people digging for dirt on her but others may think its a big deal. As for me I cant wait to vote her into office. 
If Palin becomes President, I will move to America just to say that I am Proud to be an American!!
Captain Nick,
I am actually surprised that you have a somewhat negative stereotype over Palin, considering you previously voted for McCain; thus I assumed you were a true Republican and thus a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin, no matter how you slice or dice it:)
On “Troopergate”:
Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal (Sarah Palin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
Quote: "Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, also known as Troopergate, involves the July 2008 firing of the Public Safety Commissioner for the State of Alaska by Governor Sarah Palin.
Palin, who later became the Republican vice presidential nominee in the 2008 United States presidential election, said that she dismissed commissioner Walt Monegan because of performance-related issues. Monegan said that his dismissal may have been tied to his reluctance to fire Mike Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper who is also Palin’s ex-brother-in-law. At the time Palin dismissed Monegan, Wooten was involved in a custody battle with his former wife, Molly McCann, Palin’s sister. Monegan alleged that the Governor herself, her husband, and members of her staff as well as the state’s Attorney General, had contacted him numerous times regarding Wooten.
Palin denied that there had been any pressure on Monegan to fire Wooten, either from herself or from anyone in her administration. In August, Palin acknowledged that “pressure could have been perceived to exist, although I have only now become aware of it.” She also apologized to Alaskans for what she called “this distraction”.
Before Palin became governor, she and other members of her family had made various allegations of misconduct against Wooten. An internal investigation upheld some charges and rejected others. On March 1, 2006 the chief of the Alaska state police issued a letter of reprimand to Wooten, and he served a five-day suspension as penalty. After Palin became governor in December 2006, she, her husband Todd Palin, and various aides had further contacts with Monegan about Wooten. Monegan told both Sarah Palin and Todd Palin that the disciplinary proceeding against Wooten was concluded and could not be reopened…" (continues)
Note: Mike Wooten, an Alaska State Trooper who is also Palin’s ex-brother-in-law was never fired.
The original “Troopergate”:
Troopergate (Bill Clinton)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troopergate_(Bill_Clinton)
Quote: “Troopergate is the popular name of an alleged scandal involving allegations by two Arkansas state troopers that they arranged sexual liaisons for then-governor Bill Clinton. The allegations by state troopers Larry Patterson and Roger Perry were first reported by David Brock in the American Spectator in 1993. The story mentioned a woman named Paula, a reference to Paula Jones.”
Bill Clinton: ‘Mistake to Underestimate’ Palin
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/bill-clinton-mistake-to-underestimate-palin/
by FOXNews.com
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Quote: "Bill Clinton said in an interview Thursday that “it would be a mistake to underestimate” Sarah Palin, adding that he’s not surprised by the bounce John McCain saw in the polls after naming the Alaska governor as his running mate.
“She is an instinctively effective candidate with a compelling story,” Clinton told CNBC. “And I think it was exciting to some that she was a woman, that she is from Alaska.”
He said Palin grew up in a culture that is probably “well to the right” of most Americans, but that she didn’t “define herself in those terms.”
Clinton said she “handled herself well,” but reiterated his support for the Democratic ticket.
“I think that you know, I disagree with them on many issues and that’s why aside from my party affiliation I would be for (Barack) Obama and (Joe) Biden anyway,” he said. “But I get why she has done so well. It would be a mistake to underestimate her. She has got — her intuitive skills are significant.”
The New Republic
Sarah Quaylin
by Jonathan Chait
Post Date September 19, 2008
Ever since John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, I’ve gotten confused about all the reasons I’m supposed to dislike Barack Obama. The previous reasons, in rough chronological order, were his lack of experience, his empty rhetoric, his flip-flopping, and his “celebrity.” But Palin has made each one of those critiques moot. The “celebrity” attack on Obama has a particularly Dada quality right now as starstruck Republicans bask in the charisma of their adorable veep. (Coldest state, hottest governor, read signs at her rallies.) With her hunky husband, touching family life and plucky personal story, she is the candidate of the People. And by People, I mean People magazine.
The flip side for Republicans of losing most of their attack lines was supposed to be a series of virtues Palin would bring to the ticket: She’s a reformer, a steadfast opponent of earmarks, a proponent of transparency and clean government. Subsequent reporting has revealed that Palin embodies the precise opposite of every one of these virtues. She appointed unqualified cronies, abused her power to punish personal enemies, and has displayed a Cheney-esque passion for government secrecy. Her boast of having put the state airplane on eBay was undermined by subsequent revelations that she failed to actually sell it on eBay.
The swift disintegration of Palin’s anti-pork credentials has been especially amusing. After initially casting Palin as a dedicated foe of earmarks, and then having it revealed that she asked for and received enormous sums of earmarked projects, the McCain campaign has fallen back to the defense that she requested fewer earmarks than other Alaska pols. This is true: Even though Palin took ten times the national per capita average in earmarked spending, in this regard she still rates somewhat below average by the standards of the petro-kleptocracy of the state from which she hails. Yet this defense raises the question of why Ted Kennedy never thought to run for president on the slogan “He Never Took a Drink In His Life,” and then, when challenged, point out that other members of his family are less sober than he.
The main complaint against Palin has been her lack of experience. That’s fortunate for her, since “experience”–especially measured in a linear way–fails to capture exactly what Palin lacks. Yes, two years as governor is less than you’d like, as is four years as senator. The real problem, though, is that Palin has no record of thinking about national or international policy. Bobby Jindal, another Republican veep contender, has barely more experience than Palin, but he is a respected policy intellectual. Pat Buchanan ran for president without ever having served in elective office, but he had engaged more deeply than most presidential candidates in policy questions.
Engagement, not experience, is the difference between Palin’s qualifications and Obama’s. Obama has a longstanding interest in national and (to a lesser extent) international issues, and has answered questions on all those issues in extensive detail. Palin has dealt almost exclusively with parochial issues in a wildly atypical state. (Her fiscal experience, which consists of divvying up oil lucre, offers better preparation to serve as president of Saudi Arabia than the United States.) It’s possible Palin has harbored a long-standing, secret passion for policy wonkery, but the few signs available thus far–her convention speech that spelled out “new-clear weapons,” her evident lack of familiarity with the term “Bush Doctrine”–suggest otherwise. The Republican intelligentsia is frantically tutoring her while they run out the clock until November 4.
In lieu of opening Palin to regular questioning from the press corps, of the sort the other three candidates have all undergone many times before, the McCain campaign is helpfully leaking positive appraisals of her studiousness. “Despite the worries, [Palin] struck many campaign officials as more calm and cerebral than expected,” reported Newsweek. “She was quick to ask questions, and to ‘engage in a back and forth’ with briefers.” See, the McCain campaign says she’s on the ball. That settles it, right?
But, somewhere in the recesses of my mind, this admiring appraisal of the prospective veep’s intellect struck a familiar chord. With a quick search, I discovered that, indeed, the same was said of Dan Quayle in 1988. Twenty years ago, The Washington Post reported, “Bush aides, who were getting their first in-depth exposure to Quayle, were impressed by his attention span, the quality of his questions and the facility with which he moved through the agenda.”
Other parallels stood out as well. Conservatives received Quayle’s selection rapturously. L. Brent Bozell pronounced himself “ecstatic,” and Jerry Falwell called the surprise pick “a stroke of genius.” After a media frenzy, Quayle’s speech was well-received. The convention hall burst into cheers of “We want Dan!” NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said that Quayle executed “flawlessly,” and CBS’s Bruce Morton called it “a good speech.”
Questions about Quayle’s readiness remained, but he did his best to turn them into elite condescension toward small town America. Quayle, in his acceptance speech, spoke movingly about the small towns in Indiana where he had grown up, and later disparaged Dukakis for “sneer[ing] at common sense advice, Midwestern advice.”
Today, Quayle is remembered as a disaster. But, during the campaign, his supporters believed that media skepticism of Quayle had rallied ordinary Americans to his side. Dukakis "looks down on his fellow Americans. He looks down on Bush and Dan Quayle as–in his word–‘pathetic,’ " wrote right-wing columnist Michael Novak. “Thus, the ‘feeding frenzy’ of the press in New Orleans stirred a national backlash. It united all the scorned of America as one.”
Conservatives are saying the same things about Palin. “Elite opinion,” insisted McCain strategist Steve Schmidt, “looks down with contempt at people who are not part of their world.” As Palin herself said, “If you’re not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.” To the right, the mere fact that the press questions her fitness proves that she is one of them.
As the original rationales for Palin melt away, this bond has become unshakable. Her lack of qualifications turns out to be her greatest qualification.
Jonathan Chait is a senior editor of The New Republic.
Look, nobodycares about the The swift disintegration of Palin’s anti-pork credentials …all American men care about is that Palin is HOT!..thats what counts at Erection time…I mean Election time:)
80+% approval rating, Gotta be doing something right.
The Atlantic.com news states the following: Her job approval rating is astoundingly high with an 86% overall approval rating…it’s gotten higher since mike announced himself …(twice in one blog, if I may add), thus by next week, it will probably go higher to like 98%…(and did I mention that Palin is Hot!)
LOL…you got me there. You do realize that before my second post you already had 3 that said she is HOT!!! LOL Now this one makes 4…And I agree with all four too, sure would like to have a VPILF in office. WOW…86%, gotta be doing something right.
I don’t really agree with the Governor Palin / Senator Quayle comparison, although Bush Sr’s choice of Quayle as his running mate did not prevent him from winning the presidential election in 1988.
Palin and Quayle also came from different backgrounds. Palin from a modest middle-class upbringing versus Quayle’s upper-class background. Quayle was just not the fighter that Palin is.
But, one thing in Quayle’s defense for which he was given a lot of criticism toward the end of Bush Sr’s term as president:
Dan Quayle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle
Partial quote:…On May 19, 1992, Quayle gave a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California on the subject of the Los Angeles riots. In this speech Quayle blamed the violence on a decay of moral values and family structure in American society. In an aside, he cited the fictional title character in the television program Murphy Brown as an example of how popular culture contributes to this “poverty of values”, saying: “it doesn’t help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown—a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman—mocking the importance of fathers, by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice.’” Quayle drew a firestorm of criticism from feminist and liberal organizations and was widely ridiculed by late-night talk-show hosts for this remark.The “Murphy Brown speech” became one of the most memorable incidents of the 1992 campaign. Long after the outcry had ended, the comment continued to have an effect on U.S. politics. Stephanie Coontz, a professor of family history and the author of several books and essays about the history of marriage, says that this brief remark by Quayle about Murphy Brown “kicked off more than a decade of outcries against the ‘collapse of the family.’” In 2002, Candice Bergen, the actress who played Brown, said “I never have really said much about the whole episode, which was endless, but his speech was a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable and nobody agreed with that more than I did.”
As I recall, he was unpopular even before the Murphy Brown comment on that horrible show. He should have just said the show sucked, and left it at that. Quayle was actually mocked because he had a perpetual ability to make public blunders such as misspelling “potato” (which certainly wasn’t the end of the world on its own), his overall poor grades in his academic career, a dull, lucid personality making him somewhat resemble a fawn gently pondering the oncoming headlights during interviews, and that fact that Lloyd Benson dismembered him in their debate was the reason he became a bit of a laughing stock…
Bush did indeed win the presidency, but Quayle hardly helped in the reelection bid…
Or he could have omitted mentioning the show at all and stuck to his original point linking violence with a decay of moral values and family structure in American society.
As I mentioned earlier, Quayle wasn’t really a fighter. He struck me as a rich kid type that was unaccustomed to struggling for his position in life. But, I think the liberal leaning media tended to blow his gaffs out of proportion, much as they did with Gerald Ford during his presidency. In politics, naturally each side will draw attention to blunders by their opponents in order to gain a political advantage. I’ve heard or seen many on Obama and his predecessors (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, etc.) through the years.
I like your view point George Eller. your views are always concise, factual and opinions appear neautral; unlike some others on your team. Anyways, I admire a Captain-Staff member who doesn’t appear contrite, negative or rude;unlike other staff members(not mentioning any names). I have noticed this for quite some time. I remember a time I wrote something about tanks which was a bit unfactual, and you had a polite way of correcting me on my facts. I admired that from that point onward. I just wanted to say that I feel many others respect your objectivity on forum issues and I hope to learn from your nice way of phrasing things. I aways believed that a man can learn more from positive reinforcement and constructive criticisim, than negative,critical and at times malicious feedback; like from some of your staff members(not mentioning any names).I wish you were Super-Mod as your attitude exemplifies all that is good and peaceful in this forum. Keep up the good work and I eagerly look forward to your forum posts in the near future. Your humble Staff Sergeant-The Herman meister:)
Herman meister??? Whats going on??? What…you dont think Sarah is Hot anymore???
Your above post is spot on, I agree 100%
No, he just sucks up to anyone who doesn’t move out the way fast enough at the moment. I think someone’s been slipping him pills with smiley faces on them 
…as I recall PDF. Captain George Eller wished me a Happy Birthday when it came 2 mths ago. I don’t recall getting any other birthday wish’s from the officers club. It is nice to have such caring compassionate Captain Staff members like George Eller in this Forum. If he were president, I would vote for him!..but for now, I am voting for the Hottie, Palin:)
Thanks for the compliments Herman and Mike. I really appreciate that and am quite honored to have been a positive influence.
I’ve been away from the forum for a few days and am just getting caught up on the latest posts.
Take care.
All the Best,
George