U.S. 2012 Election

[CougarKing]

Yet another update for Sarah Palin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_re_us/us_palin_ethics_complaint

AP NewsBreak: Palin implicated in ethics probe
      Rachel D'oro, Associated Press Writer – 21 mins ago
ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees, in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.

The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund.

The practical effect of the ruling on Palin will be more financial than anything else. The report recommends that Palin refuse to accept payment from the defense fund, and that the complaint be resolved without a formal hearing before the board.

The fund aims to help Palin pay off debts stemming from multiple ethics complaints against her, most of which have been dismissed. Palin says she owes more than $500,000 in legal fees, and she cited the mounting toll of the ethics probes as one of the reasons she is leaving office.

The investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded.

Palin posted an entry on Twitter in which she said the "matter is still pending."

(...)

But Daniel said his report was final.

Palin's friends and supporters created the Alaska Fund Trust in April, limiting donations to $150 per person. Organizers declined to say how much it has raised, and had hoped to raise about $500,000. A Webathon last month brought in about $130,000 in pledges.

In his report, Daniel said his interpretation of the ethics act is consistent with common sense.

An ordinary citizen facing legal charges is not likely to be able to generate donations to a legal defense fund, he wrote. "In contrast, Governor Palin is able to generate donations because of the fact that she is a public official and a public figure. Were it not for the fact that she is governor and a national political figure, it is unlikely that many citizens would donate money to her legal defense fund."

The ethics complaint was filed by Eagle River resident Kim Chatman shortly after the fund was created, alleging Palin was misusing her official position and accepting improper gifts.

"It's an absolute shame that she would continue to keep the Alaska Fund Trust Web site up and running," Chatman told the AP.

At least 19 ethics complaints have been filed against Palin, most of them after she was named the running mate for GOP presidential candidate John McCain. Most of those have been dismissed, and Palin's office usually sends a news release with the announcement.

The multiple ethics complaints include an investigation by state lawmakers over Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner in the so-called Troopergate scandal.

(...)

 

[tomahawk6]

I will bet that Chapman is a democrat. So far Palin has been cleared in 17/17 so called ethics complaints. It takes money to defend each complaint and evidently the State doesnt cover that cost. How is a politician to pay for their legal defense if not with donations ?

 

[muskrat89]

From Palin's Attorney:

"The resolution of the Trust Fund is not final. I have been working with the investigator regarding supplemental information. The matter is still pending. Whatever you have seen was released in violation of law. There has been no Board finding of an ethics violation and there is a detailed legal process to follow before there is a final resolution."

Thomas Van Flein
Private Attorney for Sarah Palin

From her spokesperson:

I cannot verify the validity of this claim. There is no final report. The Investigator is still confidentially reviewing this matter. It appears suspect that in the final days of the Governor's term, someone would again violate the law and announce a supposed conclusion before it is reached.

Meghan Stapleton
Palin Spokesperson

 

[muskrat89]

And from Gov Palin:

Statement from Sarah Palin on Legal Fund News Report
Share
Yesterday at 10:46pm
"I find the notion that I have taken any action pertaining to the legal defense trust fund misguided and factually in error. I am informed that this fund was created by experienced attorneys in DC and was modeled after other similar funds established for senators and others. The fund itself was not created by me nor is it controlled by me. Neither I nor my lawyer has received a penny from this fund, and I am informed the Trustee was withholding any action or payment pending final resolution with the Personnel Board. This is the hallmark of legal compliance and prudent conduct.

In short, I have not 'acted' relative to the defense fund and it is misleading to say I have. I have no doubt that the Trust will welcome guidance by the Board, as do we all, but it is my understanding that this matter was not resolved and the complainant's violation of law has served to mislead the public and prejudice a fair review of this matter."

Sarah Palin

 

[Edward Campbell]

Despite the fact that President Obama’s popularity is falling like a stone, I do not think the Republicans are, in any meaningful way, ready for 2010 or 2012.

The party is adrift, in the hands of real conservatives – statists and collectivists who want to use the power of big government to interfere with the lives and liberties of individuals. Conservatives of this sort – including e.g. the Rush Limbaugh and religious right wings – are dangerous to freedom and liberty and, until they are wrung out of the Republican Party and consigned to the dung heap of political history, where they belong, no thinking American will vote for the GOP.

The Republicans need to leave big government, big labour and the big banks to the Democrats and return to their natural base: the small town, small business, fiscally prudent individuals who are, correctly, described as liberals.

Sarah Palin has no place in the Republican Party America, and the whole world, needs. Tom Ridge, amongst many, many others, does, and maybe the reason he is sitting out the 2010 senate race is to begin his campaign for the presidency in 2012. One can hope, anyway.

 

[a_majoor]

Here is a meme which, if properly played, could cause immense damage to sitting congresscritters and senators. A similar scandal in the UK has pretty much destroyed "New Labour" as an effective political party in the near term (and there are elections looming), so the "Per Diem" scandal could be good news for people hoping to derail the Democrat majority in the 2010 mid terms and perhaps clean house by 2012.

Since the current President was a very recently sitting senator, it is conceivable that he can be painted by the same brush (and attempts by his handlers and the MSM to deflect or ignore such questions, regardless of the truth of the matter will only give the appearance of a cover up)

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/12/members-of-congress-get-rich-on-travel-through-huge-per-diems/

Members of Congress get rich on travel through huge per diems
POSTED AT 10:11 AM ON AUGUST 12, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY
SHARE ON FACEBOOK | PRINTER-FRIENDLY

After getting a hailstorm of criticism for its plans to buy more private jets for its own members, Congress has moved to dump the new Gulfstream orders it included in the 2010 budget bill.  However, as John Fund reports for the Wall Street Journal, that actually was the milder travel scandal to come out of this session.  Travel junkets have become wildly popular with members of Congress not just for the lure of travel, but because taxpayers provide these politicians with hefty per diems while traveling.  Some lawmakers can pocket up to $3,000 a trip in cash, thanks to a system that doesn’t require itemization and rarely demands refunds of unused cash:

The total cost for congressional overseas travel is never made public because the price tag for State Department advance teams and military planes used by lawmakers are folded into much larger budgets. Members of Congress must only report the total per diem reimbursements they receive in cash for hotels, meals and local transport.

They don’t have to itemize expenses—a convenient arrangement since most costs are covered by the government or local hosts. Some trips subtract some hotel and meal costs from the per diems, others do not. “The policy is completely inconsistent,” one House member told me. Total per diem allowances (per person, including staff) can top $3,000 for a single trip. Unused funds are supposed to be given back to the government, but congressional records show that rarely happens. …

The House’s official handbook requires that lawmakers use regular U.S. airlines “whenever possible, unless such service is not reasonably available.” But congressional records show members routinely take military planes to London, Paris and other well-served locales. Members can fly for free with their spouses on military aircraft.

Guess who is the worst offender of the latter?

You’d think House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be wise to the poor symbolism of a jet-setting Congress. But she’s part of the problem. No one objects to her ability to fly on a government jet from time to time. But last March the watchdog group Judicial Watch obtained embarrassing internal Pentagon correspondence: “Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi’s team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?” one such email read. “[T]here’s no need to block every weekend ‘just in case.’”

Other emails show intermediaries for Mrs. Pelosi frustrated when told transportation demands couldn’t be met. “It is my understanding there are no [Gulfstream] 5’s available for the House during the Memorial Day recess. This is totally unacceptable . . . The speaker will want to know where the planes are,” wrote aide Kay King. In a separate email, when told a certain type of aircraft wouldn’t be available, Ms. King wrote, “This is not good news, and we will have some very disappointed folks, as well as a very upset Speaker.” A Pelosi spokesman said the Judicial Watch report seemed to be based on “a few emails.”

Yeah.  And Watergate was based on a few tapes, Nancy.

No wonder Arlen Specter griped about not getting a bonus for meeting with his constituents.  He could have been jet-setting to the Caymans on a fact-finding mission on financial markets, while generating a good chunk of per diem cash to stuff into a bank there.  Instead, he had to fly first class back to Pennsylvania to have his constituents yell at him while not getting a couple of thou in cash.

Time to kick out the crooks again, and this time elect people who will put in place an expense-report system that accounts for the cash spent on junkets.  I suspect they’ll become a lot less popular when members of Congress can’t suck money out of the taxpayer and into their personal bank accounts.

 

[tomahawk6]

Voter anger will spill over in 2010 and alot of these democrats in congress will be looking for honest work. The Republicans paid for their sins in 2006 when they lost 80 seats in the House,the same will happen to the dems.

 

[GAP]

I can see some minor stirrings for the 2012 election (think 2011 start date), the Dems will take moderate hits, lose the majority in the senate, but retain it in the congress.....Once Obama becomes a lame duck, all bets are off depending on how bad things are screwed up...

my

 

[Long in the tooth]

$3000 for TD... wow... just like the CF!  Had a Col claim $35 for dinner when he got home at 1800.  Asked if he actually purchased dinner... he said no, but he was entitled to it...

Glad I'm retired, but it'll take years of therapy.

 

[CANADIAN F0RCES]

Had I been born in the USA, I'd of voted for RON PAUL.
He is the only common sense candidate out there. He had an unfair advantage in regards to Americas's 'crazed papparazzi' style coverage of Obama(who hasn't shown any solid movement forward or done anything good) and McCain(who could possible die at any given moment)

 

[tomahawk6]

Ron Paul is more like a John Bircher, at least thats who he invited to speak to "his" convention in Minnesota.

 

[CANADIAN F0RCES]

I've never heard of him so I'll do some research, but is it a bad thing to compare Dr.Paul to Birch or no not really?

 

[tomahawk6]

These are the principles of the John Birch Society. Sounds pretty good. A conservative organization. In reality they have morphed into a tin foil hat society much like Ron Paul himself.

To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.

Believes and works to expose a semi-secret international cabal whose members sit in the highest places of influence and power worldwide.

 

[a_majoor]

Given the impressive way the Democrats in the Congress and Administration have been fumbling, add the "culture of corruption meme" (see the post on "Per Diems", above) and non partisan voter anger (T.E.A. parties shun all politicians) and an interesting situation is brewing. While the article may be right in predicting a big turnaround for the GOP, I suspect it would be a case of voting for the "least worst" choice rather than a heartfelt embrace.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/GOP-thinks-the-unthinkable-Victory-in-2010-8103193-53174842.html

GOP thinks the unthinkable: Victory in 2010
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
August 14, 2009 

It's a possibility many Republicans speak of only in whispers and Democrats are just now beginning to face. After passionate and contentious fights over health care, the environment, and taxes, could Democrats lose big -- really big -- in next year's elections?

Ask them about it, and many Democrats will point to the continued personal popularity of Barack Obama. But that's not the story. "I think what's going to happen is Obama's going to be fine, and the Democrats in Congress are going to get their asses kicked in 2010," says one Democratic strategist who prefers not to be named. "This is following a curve like the Clinton years: take on really controversial things early, fail, or succeed partially, ask Democrats to take really tough votes, and then lose. A lot of guys are going to get beat, but the president has time to recover."

Most Republican hope focuses on the House of Representatives, but even there they have a huge job ahead. Democrats control 256 seats, and Republicans 178. Forty seats would have to change hands for Republicans to take charge.

On the other hand, 52 seats turned over when the GOP won the House in 1994. And even if Republicans don't get the 40 they need in 2010, they could dramatically narrow the gap between the parties, giving Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership less room to operate.

The polls are definitely moving in the GOP's direction. Just look at the Real Clear Politics average of the generic ballot question, which asks whether, if the election were held today, you would vote for your local Democratic or Republican candidate for Congress. It's been dominated by Democrats for the last few years -- until now.

In recent weeks, poll after poll has shown Republicans neck-and-neck, or even ahead, of Democrats. Even a National Public Radio survey found Republicans in the lead. "There's no question that you're seeing a shift across virtually all the polling," says one GOP strategist, "with Democrats losing ground."

Republicans were sensing momentum earlier in the summer, but events of the August recess -- specifically, the town hall meetings in which opponents of the Democratic health care reform plan have turned out in force -- have changed their view. "This month has opened our eyes," says one plugged-in House aide. "We're seeing real people who are fired up who weren't engaged before -- the first time we've had a popular movement that could really benefit us electorally."

For the moment, Republicans aren't worried about press reports portraying protesters as rent-a-mobs or ugly extremists. A new Gallup poll asking whether the demonstrations have made people more or less sympathetic to the protesters' point of view found that 34 percent of respondents said they were more sympathetic, while just 21 percent said less sympathetic. (Thirty-six percent said it made no difference.) For Republicans, that's a net plus.

Rep. Tom Price, the Georgia congressman who heads the House Republican Study Committee, points to what he calls the fatal combination of Democratic overreaching and arrogance. "I think that means huge gains in the House, with a very distinct possibility of returning Republicans to the majority," says Price. "The American people like checks and balances, and right now they don't see any checks and balances in Washington."

And what if the Republicans stage a comeback? Some Obama supporters think it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. "The truth is, Democratic presidents do better when there's a Republican Congress," says the Democratic strategist. "If there were a Republican Congress, there would be things that are non-starters."

Things like a public option in health care reform, a massive cap-and-trade energy scheme, and all sorts of tax increases. In other words, proposals that are popular with the Democratic base but unpopular with the independent voters who hold the president's fate in their hands.

A Republican victory might not be so bad for a president with re-election on his mind. With a GOP House, Obama would be tugging the debate toward the left, appealing to independents and keeping his Democratic supporters happy. With liberals like Pelosi and Henry Waxman running the House, Obama will be increasingly forced to fight his own party by tugging the debate toward the right -- not a formula for Democratic unity.

Not long ago, some Republicans were worried about becoming a permanent minority party. Although they may not win in 2010, they feel like they're back in the game.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.

 

[a_majoor]

More on the rocky shoals that the Obama administration is floundering upon:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2009/08/obama_misreads_his_mandate_1.html

Obama Misread His Mandate

After a rough week for health care reform, Democratic leaders appear to be pulling back on their demand for a public option. It remains to be seen whether liberal Democrats, especially in the House where they are more numerous, will go along with this. But this is still a step in the right direction to get something passed this year.

The public option was an overreach. The White House's erroneous belief that it could get it through the legislature - or at least that it could let four out of five congressional committees push it - was a misinterpretation of last year's election results. It has already made a similar mistake with cap-and-trade, backing a House bill that appears to have no chance of success in the Senate.

Bismarck once commented that politics is the art of the possible. So far, the White House has not exhibited a good understanding of exactly what is possible in this political climate. It has been acting as though the President's election was a major change in the ideological orientation of the country.

A lot of liberals certainly saw it as such. All the strained comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt were a tipoff that many were talking themselves into the idea that the 2008 election created an opportunity for a substantial, leftward shift in policy. Yet the election of 2008 was not like the 1932 contest. It wasn't like 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, or even 1988, either. Obama's election was narrower than all of these. FDR won 42 of 48 states. Eisenhower won 39, then 41. Johnson won 44 of 50. Nixon won 49. Reagan won 44, then 49. George H.W. Bush won 40. Obama won 28, three fewer than George W. Bush in his narrow 2004 reelection.

This makes a crucial difference when it comes to implementing policy. Our system of government depends not only on how many votes you win, but how broadly distributed those votes are. This prevents one section or faction from railroading another. It is evident in the Electoral College and the House, but above all in the Senate, where 44 senators come from states that voted against Obama last year. That's a consequence of the fact that Obama's election - while historic in many respects, and the largest we have seen in 20 years - was still not as broad-based as many would like to believe. Bully for Obama and the Democrats that they have 60 Senators, but the fact remains that thirteen of them come from McCain states, indicating that the liberals don't get the full run of the show.

For whatever reason, the Obama administration has acted as if those hagiographical comparisons to FDR were apt. It let its liberal allies from the coasts drive the agenda and write the key bills, and it's played straw man semantic games to marginalize the opposition. For all the President's moaning in The Audacity of Hope about how the Bush administration was railroading the minority into accepting far right proposals - he was prepared to let his Northeastern and Pacific Western liberal allies do exactly the same thing: write bills that excite the left, infuriate the right, and scare the center; insist on speedy passage through the Congress; and use budget reconciliation to ram it through in case the expected super majority did not emerge.

This might have flown during FDR's 100 Days. But this is not 1933 and Barack Obama is no Franklin Roosevelt.

Now that his legislative agenda is stalling, we're seeing the predictable critiques about the outdated United States Senate, which is the real source of the bottleneck: the Connecticut Compromise was meant to protect the interests of small states, but not states that are this small. Rhode Island, yes. Wyoming, no! These arguments will be conveniently tabled whenever the Democrats return to minority status, so I won't bother to address their merits. The bigger question is: what did they think was going to happen? It's one thing to bemoan the fundamental unfairness of the Senate; it's another thing to overlook it when you're formulating your legislative program. The map is what it is: that big swath of red that runs through the middle of the country then swings right through the South should have been a tipoff that the stage was not set for coastal governance.

The President should have realized what was possible and what wasn't, and he should have used his substantial influence to push the House toward the kind of centrist compromise the Senate will ultimately require. That's called building a consensus - something he promised he'd do but has not yet made a serious effort at.

 

[CougarKing]

Dethroned Miss California Carrie Prejean as the running mate of Sarah Palin if Palin gets the 2012 nomination?

:-\

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/09/miss-california-wows-conservatives.html

 

[tomahawk6]

Miss California is not old enough to be Vice President,you have to be at least 40.

 

[a_majoor]

Actually, you only need to fulfill the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States#Eligibility

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications one must meet to be eligible to the office of President. A President must:

    * be a natural born citizen of the United States;[6]
    * be at least thirty-five years old;
    * have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Under the Twenty-second Amendment, no eligible person can be elected President more than twice. The Twenty-second Amendment also specifies that if any eligible person who serves as President or Acting President for more than two years of a term for which some other eligible person was elected President, then the former can only be elected President once. Scholars disagree whether anyone no longer eligible to be elected President could be elected Vice President, pursuant to the qualifications set out under the Twelfth Amendment.[7]

The Constitution also disqualifies other eligible persons from the Presidency. Under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, the Senate has the option, upon conviction, of disqualifying convicted individuals from holding other federal offices, including the Presidency.[8] Also, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any eligible person who, having sworn an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and later rebelled against the United States, from becoming President, unless each house of the Congress has removed the disqualification by a two-thirds vote.

 

[CougarKing]

Such a short trip probably meant she didn't have time to shop at Causeway Bay.  ;D

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/22/palin.hongkong/index.html?eref=ib_topstories

Palin speech to Hong Kong investors divides opinions
Story Highlights
Sarah Palin to speak before about 1,000 investors at conference in Hong Kong

Speech by ex-GOP vice president candidate is billed as first outside North America

Palin expected to touch on governance, economics and current events

Bill Clinton, Al Gore have been previous speakers at investors' conference

By Miranda Leitsinger
CNN
HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- Former U.S. Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin will be in Hong Kong this week to address about 1,000 investors from around the globe in what is billed as her first speech outside North America.
Palin, who recently stepped down as Alaska's governor, will make the keynote speech on Wednesday to the 16th CLSA Investors' Forum. She will cover governance, economics and current events in the United States and Asia, said Simone Wheeler, head of communications for CLSA.

"What we look to do is invite our keynote speakers who we feel are opinion makers, who are newsworthy and who we feel our clients -- a very broad international client base -- would be interested in hearing from," Wheeler said Monday, noting that CLSA is a politically neutral, independent brokerage.

"We certainly believe that Sarah Palin will be -- she has been in the news -- we believe that she will continue to be a newsmaker in the future and therefore someone we feel that is definitely of interest to fund managers."
Past keynote speakers include former U.S. President Bill Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, rocker and activist Bob Geldof, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former U.S. Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan, Wheeler added. Would you pay to see Sarah Palin give speech? Soundoff below

The selection of Palin has received a lot of support, but there also are critics, Wheeler said.

"She is a controversial figure, so she attracts polarizing opinions. And we have received feedback from people that question our decision. But I would have to frame that by saying most of that feedback has come from people in the U.S. who are not our clients."

CLSA decided to close the session to reporters, Wheeler said. She also said CLSA does not disclose whether or how much it pays speakers.

Wheeler said Palin would be in Hong Kong only for the speech, adding that it was a short trip.

Palin's political ambitions are unclear, though she has recently attacked U.S. President Barack Obama's health care initiative. During the 2008 presidential campaign, she was lampooned by critics and comedians for suggesting that she had foreign policy experience because she was then governor of Alaska and "you can actually see Russia" from part of the state.

Chinese-language media did not give much coverage to her appearance, and some local residents and visitors were surprised to learn she was in town.
Olivia Chung, a 29-year-old woman who works in a shop that sells dried seafood, said she did not know Palin was in Hong Kong.

"I think most most people know who she is," she said. "I don't think she will have some advice for Hong Kong people ... I think they (people) don't care what she will talk about."

But retired investor, Pauline Rooney of Adelaide, Australia, said she knew Palin would be in Hong Kong while Rooney was vacationing here.

"I thought, 'wow, we might able to see or hear her,' to see if she has got any better sense from her experience," she said, later adding. "I don't know what platform she would be coming from that would have any relevance to anyone in investing."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Such a short trip probably meant she didn't have time to shop at Causeway Bay.  ;D

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/22/palin.hongkong/index.html?eref=ib_topstories

A bit about the organization that invited her, here.

My guess: she needs money; CLSA pay their "keynote speakers;" she's a celebrity; celebrities "sell" more tickets than do smart people.