Obviously, you were astute enough to find these attacks on the internet yourself, so why not try to find the opposing information by yourself?

Larry, when did you join the 'guilty until proven innocent' crowd?  I'm very rapidly coming to doubt your objectivity.  You rather conveniently omit quite a few things in support of your 'guilty until proven innocent' hatchet job.  Are you working for the Obama campaign now?

Troopergate -

God help us, you want another -gate.  You claim this trooper had a 'clean slate' - no mention of the alleged tasing of his 10-yr old son and possible other issues which his family would have been in a unique position to know.  Had you been in Palin's position, you might have wanted his boss to know some things (what you call 'pressure').  Furthermore, the trooper was not dismissed.  You also failed to mention that the Commissioner was dismissed a year after the concerns about the trooper were raised.  That's not what I would call 'sudden.'  His reluctance to dimiss what some considered a substandard trooper may have played a role in her decision to dismiss him, but she had at least a year's worth of experience with other issues upon which to base that decision, one she was entrusted by the electorate to make - in Alaska, the governor may dismiss the Commissioner at will, without cause.  Had the trooper been dismissed at the direction of Palin, an argument could be made that she 'misused her authority' as Governor.  Dismissal of Monegan was an 'exercise' of her authority, not a 'misuse' of her authority.  It would be nice (for you, apparently) if there were evidence of actual misuse of authority, but so far, there isn't any.  Notice also the unquestioned assumption of purity extended to Monegan & Wooten.  At least you didn't consider them 'guilty until proven innocent' - thank you for that.

Bridgegate - (Oh, what the hell, why not?)

I'll leave that to Palin & the politicians involved to explain, but I have just one question.  Are you really that new to politics, Larry?

Planegate - (I'm on a roll)

When you last sold a car, did you get what you paid for it?  Do you know how long the plane was owned by the State of Alaska?  How many hours were on the engines?  Do you know what's its book value was on the day of the sale?  Since when is 2.1 million bucks not millions?  Was it not placed on eBay?  She has said all along, "I 'put' it on eBay;" please find the quote where she says "I 'sold' it on eBay."  Finally, if it was sold for more than the book/depreciated value, they made a 'profit' - a truly evil word, I understand, but just possibly applicable in this case.

Then there's this -

I had always respected you for being a principaled advocate for your beliefs.  That respect has been seriously eroded with your largely petty attacks on Palin.  I will read you through a much different prism from now on.

Sadly I came to that conclusion several months back.

Hit & Run post, I guess.

Seem to get less and less objective.

Starting to see a pattern here.

Slam with innuendo and half truths and run.

Responses to all three below.

Anthony R, you could have said that you were unable to find the links, or that they do not in fact exist.

Dr. Guy, this is a blog cite, a forum for users to express their opinions. In all the years that we have blogged together, I have never read a post of yours that did not express a particular point of view. Objectivity is not a requirement for posting.

Daiwa, thank you for an intelligent rebuttal and I will attempt to answer in the spirit that you have posted. 

On Troopergate (and note that I did not coin that term, it has been widely used) the issue you have raised about whether Wooten was a good father or not is secondary. CNN has carried an interview with him (see http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/05/palin.trooper/index.html) where he acknowledges the taser incident. BUT...Govenor Palin herself, when she turned over the tapes of conversations that originated from the govenor's office referred to them as a "smoking gun." Indeed calls were made from her office urging the dismissal of her former brother-in-law, who may be a lousy father or just made a mistake but has not had charges filed against him as a trooper, that should not have been made. Whether she was the source of these calls or not will be determined by the Attorney General and the Special Prosecutor.

The Bridge to Nowhere was cited by John McCain as an example of Palin's financial responsibility. No mention was made that as a candidate, she had the bridge as part of her platform. Nor was any mention made that the highway, paid for with Federal dollars, continues under construction. A highway that goes nowhere.

Now we come to the plane. The night before I posted, I did not reference with Palin said, I referenced what McCain said. John McCain told the story of the plane being sold on eBay and ended with the words "at a profit." We are agreed that the plane was NOT sold on eBay. Nor was the plane sold at a profit in the way that most people would use the term. $2.1 million is not more than $2.7, it is less.

But let us look at who bought the plane. Larry Reynolds is a wealthy oilman who moved to Alaska from Texas. His wife (we may assume on his behalf, or at least I will) donated $1,000,000 to the campaign of Republican John Harris, who is the State Speaker of the House and who, through a miraculous coincidence, arranged the deal. Harris was the one that contacted Govenor Palin to let her know that he had a buyer.

You are right, I don't know if the plane's depreciated value was less than what it was sold for, but I am wagering that neither do you. You are throwing up a red herring. Maybe it had gained in value. (Highly unlikely I'll agree.) Neither of us know. What we do know is that selling a plane to for $600,000 less than you bought it for to a person that has contributed to your party is NOT what John McCain said happened.

Yeah, I made a snide remark about Palin having a hard time getting through college. And I certainly couldn't resist commenting that she was a journalism major. It is ironic considering how the Republican party had criticized how journalists have responded to her.

But these aren't attacks, at least not in sense of personal attacks. Her record does not support the persona that is being presented to the public. She is in politics and her record during the 20 months that she has held office should be open for debate.

Larry, with all due respect, these are just knee jerk affirmations of every tin foil hat conspiracy there is. Although, you did leave out the part where she bans books and calls black people Sambo. I've been watching Palin for months now and the Trooper scandal was the only thing worth even looking at. I don't think Palin did anything wrong from what I can tell, and I don't think McCain would have picked her if he thought she did either.

Thanks for returning to your post, Larry.

I understand the trooper business has 'nuances' but I also understand there were other issues besides tasing his step-son.  At least 2 other occurrences for which I believe he was formally reprimanded - saw the source info for that a couple of days ago but can't put my finger on it just now.  I'll keep looking, but this is from the CNN interview you referenced:

Applying the reasoning you've applied to examining Palin: Those 'significant pattern' & 'last chance' parts clearly indicate that those two issues were just the 'tip of the iceberg,' not to mention the guy's been married four times.  While Wooten wasn't specific, he admitted to making 'mistakes' - so did OJ.  How could the State of Alaska possibly entrust a weapon & the authority to shoot to kill to such an unstable individual?  You see where this line of reasoning takes you?

Also, I'd like to hear the context in which Palin spoke the words 'smoking gun' - to paraphrase Inigo, I'm not sure she meant it exactly as you mean it.  Anyway, none of what's been made public so far constitutes 'misuse of authority' as I understand it, and I'm not sure whether 'authority misuse' is a crime or a political accusation.  Perhaps we should wait until the AG concludes what authority she actually had & whether she actually misused it in the legal sense of the word.  In the meantime, it serves her opponents to continue stirring this pot of shit.

The whole bridge to nowhere business (including the 'highway to nowhere') is fair political game & I have no doubt she'll get endless questions about how she went from supporting it to sending the money back.  Let's see how she answers them & how those answers square with reality.  Because the bridge became such a poster child for earmarks on the national level, I suspect 'reality' will turn out to have been somewhat murky.  We'll just have to wait & see.

Your initial article refers to McCain talking about the plane 'last night' which I interpret to mean McCain's acceptance speech.  I've looked through the entire text of the speech twice from two sources, the International Herald Tribune & ABC News, and I can't find any reference to the plane in it.  I swear I remember McCain making that little side comment, "Made a profit, too!," but I'm wondering now when I actually heard it.  Both sources include his other ad libs & deviations from the prepared text so it apparently wasn't in his acceptance speech.  Can you remember at what point he commented about that?

Try as I might, I can't see how who bought the plane has any relevance here.  Can't see how changing the subject helps support your accusation.  The plane was purchased by Murkowski's administration for 2.7mil, placed on eBay asking 2.7mil & then, failing to attract any bids, sold directly through a broker for 2.1mil.  You are correct, I haven't a clue as to the appraised value of the 20-year old aircraft, which was my point.  If it can be established that there was some 'sweetheart deal' in which the buyer got it for substantially less than fair market value, then it becomes somewhat relevant, but the failure to get any bids for the asking price undercuts that notion substantially and there were certainly 2.1 million reasons to unload the thing since it wasn't being used.  If you wish to attack McCain for 'mis-speaking' (once we sort out what he actually said) that's fair.  But there's just no 'there' here - nitpicking the definition of profit, an off-hand comment about profit no less, is just not an issue that is going to 'resonate' with the public.

Yep, I see the irony in journalists attempting to eat one of their own, too.  And thanks for owning up - snide those comments were, indeed.  What about her college career suggests she had a 'hard time' getting through?  Could financial or personal/family issues have played a role in the reality that she attended 4?  And just what is the relevance of that?  I know lotsa folks with only high school degrees who are now a helluva lot smarter & more successful than me.

As for 'personas' being held up to the public, none of them quite square with the records of their respective owners, so on that we can agree.  True for every politician in history.  To hijack an old remark of McCain's from the Keating Five business, 'It'll be a cold day in Gila Bend before that changes.'  However, I don't believe her 'persona' is any more of a stretch than those of the other three.  I can understand you being upset that her 'persona' has, at least for now, somewhat eclipsed BO's - that has to be unsettling.   And who can argue that her record during the past 20 months shouldn't be open for debate?  At least, she has one.  

Very true, and you did not see me censoring you (nor do I have the power to).  I do have the right to slam an obvious hatchet job such as you post.  Especially coming from one that appeared to pride themselves on accuracy and fairness.

I did not tell you that "this is my blog and I can post what I want to" when you called me to task on Gravel.  An honest tirade against something you dont like is one thing.  Printing half truths and lies as facts is another.  Both are allowable as this is a blog.  But I would expect that most would at least do a fact check (with the exception of the lunatics at du.org, daily kos, puffingtonhost, moveon.org and mickey moron) before going off on an obvious attempt to slime a candidate, and then to draw a very obvious erroneous conclusion based on the half truths and lies.

But write what you want.  It is apparent that your desire for the truth is being subverted by your hatred of one side.

To Dr. Guy: We still share some common ground. You won't see me quoting from Daily Kos or Moveon.org because of their obvious bias. And I do endevour to fact check.

Daiwa and I agree as to the basic facts of the plane sale, for example. He offers a different interpretation while to me the fact that the plane was sold to a Republican contributor for less than the purchase price is not only germane, but central. Specifically to the point the "and made a profit for the people of Alaska" part was repeated when John McCain was in Michigan. It simply is not true.

Moving on the Bridge to Nowhere, it has been by now thoroughly documented (Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Bloomberg) that the construction of a highway costing taxpayers $100 million goes on. That is not open to dispute.

Anthony, in my initial post I quoted newspaper sources. It is not tin foil hat stuff and it is disparaging of you to say so. To offer that McCain wouldn't have picked her if he thought she wasn't the "right stuff".....you do know that they had only had one cell phone call (by John McCain's own admission) before she was offered the nomination?

I'd still like a specific reference to the initial and subsquent quotes.  This is the first time you've used the word 'repeated.'

Try as you might Larry, I don't think you're going to succeed in making a little gently rolling hill out of this molehill, let alone a mountain.  William Ayers is off-limits (I'm sure you're aware of the 'outrage' over the Kurtz interview on a Chicago radio station) but the Dems have at least 30 lawyers in Wasilla trying to pick every nit of Palin's political career & spin it as something bad.  And I think that they will not only fail, but that whatever they try to trumpet as evidence of evil will be met with an even more furious backlash than has already occurred. True colors are truly coming out.  I'm about to the point where I have only one more thing to say on this & that's 'Meh.'

And what's up with the add in the middle of Larry's post today?  I'm a subscriber & logged in - what the hell's that doing there?

You only quoted part of them, the part that would give the wrong impression and push an agenda.  Again, all perfectly legal.  But not very ethical.

Boy, Dr. guy, you are really bending over backwards to try to hold me to a standard that you yourself have never even come close to. I cited source and date for each article. Easily verifiable. Nor, if you looked up the articles, did what I post contradicte the tone of any article. How is that unethical?

Daiwa, Newsday link: http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/saturday/nation/ny-usebay065831440sep06,0,7486973.story

Linked version is quite favorable to Palin in summary, but does corroborate the facts as presented. Please also note the line "State officials said they sold it through a broker for $2.1 million - a loss." (Also note the story is written one day AFTER my post, so the acknowledgement that the plane was in fact sold at a loss was not made at that time.)

Palin has a very limited political track record. But what she has done contradicts what she is promising to do.