So the promised “October Surprise” report from the Alaska Legislative Counsel’s Consultant, Stephen Branchflower, has concluded that Governor Sarah Palin did, in fact, break state law in her efforts to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state troopers.

What set the whole thing off was when she fired the state’s top cop, former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, for not firing trooper Mike Wooten. The consultant found that this firing was actually within her power, but her actions in trying to get Wooten fired were not. And for all of the McCain campaign’s complaining that the investigation was solely into Monegan’s firing, which has turned out to be technically legal, they’re wrong:

The contract provides that I, as the Consultant to the Council “shall provide legal services to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch.

~ pg 2 of the report, emphasis mine (PDF)

And for all of Sarah Palin’s insisting that the report has exonerated her, she’s lying:

Finding Number One

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) provides “The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

~ pg 8 of the report, emphasis mine (PDF)

The full text of the statute is here (PDF), and also states:

Sec. 39.52.120. Misuse of official position.

(a) A public officer may not use, or attempt to use, an official position for personal gain,
and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person.

This is not just an “ethics violation,” as many news organizations insist on calling it, but an actual violation of a state statute. An independent consultant hired by the bipartisan Legislative Council found that Governor Palin broke the law, plain and simple, by seeking revenge against an individual through her office, and by allowing her husband to use her office for the same purpose. Looks pretty cut and dried to me.

The question is, what will the Alaska Legislature do with this report? The investigation and release of the report were unanimously approved by the Legislative Counsel, consisting of eight Republicans and four Democrats. But, the ethics statute in question clearly states that violations should be handled by the Personnel Board, and coordinated by the Attorney General, who refused to cooperate with Branchflower to begin with. Penalties for violating the act definitely include dismissal, but again, that’s under the purview of the Personnel Board. The deck may just be stacked, unless the Legislature chooses to take some other action, circumnavigating the statute with who knows what.

Fascinating.

This post from a contributer to Talking Points Memo is particularly well written:

Sarah Palin has tapped into a frightening core of redneck hatred, racism, and fear-mongering that has led to the crowd frenzies we’ve witnessed in recent weeks, and John McCain seems to delight in it as well, even though he presumably knows better. So vicious have some of the shouted comments gotten that even the Secret Service has started to investigate. Joe Biden has stated–rightly so–that at this level of presidential politics, those who head the ticket have a responsibility to set the tone and discourage that kind of nastiness.

So it’s easy to listen to the loudest voices on their side of the aisle–aided and abetted by right-wing talk radio, FOX news, and viral e-mails–and despair. It’s easy to think that at least half of our country’s population is just plain NUTS.

But my friend Robby lets me know that this is not the case.

My friend Robby TURNED OFF talk radio when even he knew it had reached the level of absolute idiocy.

This is why I keep referring to “thinking conservatives.” Because for every thinking conservative who GETS what this election is really about, there are TEN moderate Republicans and Independents out there who get it as well.

I like to joke that there will be many “closeted conservatives” who will enter the voting booth, pull the curtain, glance around to make sure they are alone, and pull the lever or push the computer-screen button for Barack Obama for president. (And take the secret to their graves.)

These are people who do love their country, and they love their Party, and they know that, somewhere along the line (Karl Rove/George W. Bush), the values their party stands for got seriously derailed.

As Robby put it to me, “We have plenty of principles on our side that we should be able to stand on proudly. We shouldn’t HAVE to get into this bullshit about Obama being Muslim or hanging out with domestic terrorists or whatever crap it is. Most of us know that stuff’s not true. We’re better than this.”

Watching the McCain tactics of the last two weeks, especially the unabashedly dishonest whipping of the mob, has just beaten me down. The logic in my head is something like, “Why would they be doing this if it didn’t work?”

But it isn’t going to work, because people really aren’t stupid. There are some, of course, but the majority of people in this country know fair play when they see it, and don’t like it when politicians play dirty.

They don’t like people who lie, especially people who lie about things that can be so easily verified as lies. And these days, anyone can fire up “the Google” and figure it out in about two seconds flat.

So, my mantra for the next three weeks: remember, people aren’t stupid. And they get insulted when you treat them as if they were. It’s gonna be okay.

The Connecticut State Supreme Court has just ruled, 4-3, that gay couples must be allowed to marry and that the existing civil unions law in the state is insufficient:

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

“To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others,” Palmer wrote.

The Governor, M. Jodi Rell, commented, “The Supreme Court has spoken. . . I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success.”

This brings up a point for me. Since when is a court expected to reflect “the majority of the people” in the state? Isn’t a court supposed to decide what the law allows, regardless of public opinion?

And why can’t more people see that allowing a majority vote to decide an issue that effects a minority population is simply unfair?

But anyway, today I’m celebrating.

I’m seeing this all over the place, a giggling at Joe Biden for using the term “Bosniak” during the debate last night, which many are taking to be a slip of the tongue for “Bosnians.”

It’s not. Bosniak is the correct, though lesser-used, term for Bosnian Muslims, a specific ethnic group in Bosnia, separate from the Bosnian Serbs or Croats.

More here, here, here, and here.

Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution says:

“The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Article II, Section 1:

“The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected. . .”

And the 25th Amendment to the Constitution, dealing with Presidential succession:

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

In a nutshell: the Vice President’s primary purpose is to take over the Presidency if needed. Secondarily, to serve as President of the Senate in the case of a tie vote.

That’s it.

Candidate Sarah Palin seems to not understand this:

Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that’s not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I’m thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president’s policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.
…
Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with [Cheney] that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

Can anyone point out the language in the Constitution that could in any way back up this interpretation of the power of the Vice President? ‘Cause I can’t find it.

And for someone who says that patriotism “is saying, government, you know, you’re not always the solution. In fact, too often you’re the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way,” this blatant power-grab seems to be discongruous. I’m with Rachel Maddow, who recently said, “government is the problem here when it’s run by people who don’t believe government should work well.”

Here’s what Joe Biden said on the question of Vice Presidential power:

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there’s a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he’s part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

(Though yes, I’ll give you his slight gaffe that Article I defines the Executive branch when it’s really Article II.)

Now you tell me, which vision of the role of the Vice Presidency would you rather have in office?

I was nervous in the beginning because Palin wasn’t falling all over herself. But then I noticed the pattern:

1. Listen for key word, from either the moderator’s question or Biden.
   • If the moderator does not supply a key word, imagine one and make lame excuse for not answering the real question.
2. Regurgitate prepared 90 second speech on key word topic.

UPDATE: MoxieLife has a great flow chart that shows exactly what I’m talking about:

So, sure, she was cute, if you like that sort of thing, and she didn’t fall on her face.

Content-wise, though, she was just empty. The one place she made herself sound knowledgeable, on the “surge-tactics” in Afghanistan, she got the name of the General completely wrong, and obviously had not heard the news yesterday and today from both General McKiernan (he wants more troops, but specifically declines to use the word “surge”) and General Petraeus (he acknowledges that these two vastly different countries require vastly different strategies), both of whom totally back up what Biden said.

And then there was the whole, “Of course I agree with Dick Cheney that the VP is an entity unto him or herself!” moment where she seemed to think the Constitution supported her taking over the Senate.

REALLY??

Biden was steady as a rock. Not necessarily exciting, but steady. Specifics when he needed them, no gaffes to speak of, and emotionally present. Solid.

From a July 1, 2008 speech by the Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka:

“Well, I just don’t trust him.”

Why is that?

Her voice dropped just a bit: “Because he’s black.”

I said, “Look around. Nemacolin’s a dying town. There’re no jobs here. Kids are moving away because there’s no future here. And here’s a man, Barack Obama, who’s going to fight for people like us and you won’t vote for him because of the color of his skin. Are you out of your ever-loving mind?”

Brothers and sisters, we can’t tap dance around the fact that there are a lot of folks out there just like that woman.

A lot of them are good union people; they just can’t get past this idea that there’s something wrong with voting for a black man.

Well, those of us who know better can’t afford to look the other way.

I’m not one for quoting dead philosophers, but back in the 1700s, Edmund Burke said: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”

Well, there’s no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.

It’s our special responsibility because we know, better than anyone else, how racism is used to divide working people.

We’ve seen how companies set worker against worker — how they throw whites a few extra crumbs off the table – and how we all end up losing.

But we’ve seen something else, too.

We’ve seen that when we cross that color line and stand together no one can keep us down.

Full speech as prepared for delivery, and the whole video, are here.

h/t Sully

The AP reports today of a study that concludes, “People with only cell phones may differ enough from those with landline telephones that excluding the growing population of cell-only users from public opinion polls may slightly skew the results.”

Ya think? Statistics quoted in the study:

of people under age 30 with only cell phones, 62 percent were Democrats and 28 percent Republicans. Among landline users the same age that gap was narrower: 54 percent Democrats, 36 percent GOP.

Similarly, young cell users preferred Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over Republican nominee John McCain by 35 percentage points. For young landline users, it was a smaller 13-point Obama edge.

Then there’s the advent of caller ID, which also affects cell phone users because most plans count incoming calls against your minutes, too. Do you answer your phone if you don’t recognize the number? I don’t on the landline, especially if it’s not a local area code, and I never do if it’s my cell phone.

And here’s the purely economic issue: we have been looking to ditch our landline, and only keep it because it seems to be the only way to get reliable broadband internet in our area. The local phone section of our phone bill, outside of the internet or long distance, is just absurd. The plan itself is listed at $29.99 a month, and then a whopping $14.23 in taxes and fees is added on to that - about a 50% tax on just having a phone number. Contrast that with the cell phone bill, where the taxes and fees come out to about 15%, and we get two phones out of the deal. How much sense does that make?

The point? Assuming that the electorate is equally represented by polls that only call land lines, and of course can only talk to the people who actually pick up, is just wrong. And land lines are a rip off.

We made a point of watching Letterman last night after Keith Olbermann mentioned his fill-in appearance for John McCain on Countdown, and I’m so glad to see the video already going viral.

In a nutshell, McCain cancelled his appearance on the show due to the economic meltdown, told Letterman personally that he was “off to save the economy,” and then he stayed in New York, did an interview with Katie Couric at the very moment he should have been in Letterman’s studio, and got caught. Just another example of how duplicitous the man has become. And to quote Olbermann, “Letterman was on FIRE.”

Also mentioned by Cranky Cindy and ChaliceChick.

Recently I was asked, “just who you actually think you are in this movement” in an email after a blogger didn’t like what I wrote in their comments section, and by “this movement” I can only assume she meant Unitarian Universalism.

And while the rest of the email and the conflict surrounding its origin are just laughable to me, and really not worth going into, this particular sentiment strikes me as one that should be addressed publicly.

It’s the idea that you have to be somebody in order to open your mouth, especially if you want to disagree with what those who think they are somebody might have to say. This is fundamentally in opposition to what Unitarian Universalism really stands for — the right of conscience, freedom of belief, the importance and value of every individual, and those individuals connected into a greater whole.

This can be an interesting idea to struggle with, because there are of course times when things are better left to experts (see Wall Street mess), but there’s also the situation of the child pointing out the Emperor’s state of undress (see skepticism of the oversight-free Wall Street bailout plan).

But I would argue that in the context of the Unitarian Universalist movement the very question, “who do you think you actually are?” is a breach of the covenant that holds our faith together. To criticize an idea or behavior is not to diminish a person’s worth. To attack an individual person and question their belonging, however, does.

And to launch such an attack because you don’t like what a person says, or thinks, is sheer laziness. If you don’t want to engage with an idea, wouldn’t it be a better idea to just ignore it than rip apart the person who thought it?

I thought a long time before posting this, but I think this is an important issue to get out there and discuss. So, what do you think?

How do you walk the balance of valuing individuals within the greater whole?

And how do you deal with situations where disagreements become personal attacks on one’s character?

What does it take before someone’s ideas and/or behavior is enough to remove them from a community?