Posted on 07/09/2009 8:13:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
I was a Senator Fred Thompson supporter in 2008 and bundled many thousands of dollars for him. I witnessed Romney operatives trying to sabotage his campaign, as well as Governor Huckabee’s, but you go ahead and call that a “conspiracy theory” if you like. Many here also saw what happened.
Apparently according to who? So you have a citation for it from someone else? You may want to forward it to brainyquote.com. They've sure got it attributed to Plato.
Lots of people attribute this quote to Plato
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/879.Plato
Who do you think said it?
Biden, though perhaps he wasn't the first. ;-D
To be honest, I really haven't looked at it closely enough to know. But, when she initially quit and that $500K number was bandied about, I looked into it superficially. That's when I realized that Legal Defense Funds in AK are just about the same as anywhere else, and in some instances less regulated than other states.
Simply put, the individual funds aren't required to report fund inflow totals nor outflows of any kind. I get the feeling from your question that you're leaning towards believing that the $500K is somewhat of a red herring. It's the direction I'm leaning as well, but I haven't made up my mind, yet.
I don't see any contradiction in Hindraker's thesis, at all. He saying that she's mounting a campaign for president, and at the same time she has created a flawed foundation from which to launch that campaign. At least, that's his premise or theme of his piece.
You're last question "then why would she do it to run for president?", is intimated in Hindraker's thesis. That's the question he's asking, "Why would a person with presidential aspirations quit the only job that, if successfully completed would lend them credibility upon which to launch their campaign?" It's a good question.
I’m not sure red herring is the right word because I do believe she’s being billed that much, mostly for campaign and Troopergate rather than the less intense ethics stuff. What concerns me is the total lack of information about what’s been raised and spent to date. The fund committed, under their disclosure provisions when set up in April, that they would release to the public a full accounting of contributions every 30 days. Clearly they haven’t done that and it raises red flags. How long can her fund pitch for a debt that’s already been paid off?
The “faulty foundation” is that of those who say Palin resigned to run for President and say “what a stupid move for anyone wanting to run for President!” What has she said or done to indicate that she resigned to run for President? NOTHING. They are throwing darts in the dark and claiming to have hit the bullseye. In reality, they don’t have a friggin’ clue.
To your last question, I don't know. As for the "red herring" comment, I didn't mean to imply that the expenses weren't legitimate, or even mounting for that matter. But, I'm not sure, and I don't know if anyone else is either, that the expenses are "bankrupting" her. It seems that there are adequate funds on hand to cover their legal expenses, or at least will be in the foreseeable future.
They're speculating that Palin is indeed running, precisely because she didn't foreclose that possibility in her press conference, or in any subsequent statement. In fact, when things are said along the lines of "higher calling", fighting for America in a different way and the like, it's fuels the speculation. And Palin knows it.
She could have easily addressed this, as Hindraker points out. But she elected not to. My common sense tells me that wasn't by accident. Others seem to agree.
I guess we’ll find out her motives in less than a year. Either she runs for senate, or she is considering a run for the presidency. If she had no importance nationally in the Republican Party in regards to presidential aspirations, then I would call her a quitter. But it does look like she’s positioning herself for a major run at national offfice. I always thought being in Alaska put her too far away from events. We shall see.
Here’s the story: (Make of it what you will.)
In the wake of Governor Palin stepping down from her job, new allegations have surfaced today in Alaska charging Palin with additional violations of the Alaska Executive Ethics Act.
Zane Henning — a conservative government watchdog from the governor’s hometown of Wasilla and an oilfield worker on Alaska’s North Slope — asserts in a letter to Alaska Attorney General Daniel S. Sullivan that Palin has “been charging and pocketing per diem to live in her home and has used the process for a personal gain since being elected.”
The Washington Post first broke this story last September during the 2008 presidential race, but until now, no formal ethics charges have been brought on the matter in Alaska.
In a detailed press release accompanying his complaint, Henning declared that:
Palin’s use of the per diem is in direct conflict with Section 39.52.120. (a) of the Alaska Executive Ethics Act....More than a thousand state employees commute from the Mat-Su Valley daily and none of them get to pocket free money.
Henning noted that “the State of Alaska provides housing in Juneau for the Governor.”
If she chooses not to live there, Alaskans should not have to pay for it. I am requesting that you and the Personnel Board direct Governor Sarah Palin to reimburse the State of Alaska all per diem funds, plus interest, and a fine that are related to charges while staying in her Wasilla residence.
Henning further argued that Alaska Statute 39.20.010 sets an “annual salary for the governor of $125,000.”
Sarah Palin has collected more than the amount established by law by cashing in her per diem checks. Alaska Statute 39.20.050 (Exclusive Compensation) states that the compensation fixed by law for the governor and lieutenant governor is in full for all services rendered by each of them in any official capacity or employment whatsoever during their respective terms of office. Per diem is therefore any added expenses incurred while in travel status, not when living in your own home.
According to Henning:
State travel regulations say that per diem can’t be claimed when travel is less than 50 miles from a state employee’s workplace. The IRS and state finance officer have already determined that the per diem is considered income. The governor’s workplace in Anchorage is only a 45-mile commute from her Wasilla home.
In February, Palin was required to pay back income taxes on thousands of dollars in expense money she received while living at her home overlooking Lake Lucille in Wasilla. Little more than two weeks ago she was forced to pay back the State of Alaska more than $8,100.00 for nine trips taken by her children that she had improperly charged as being part of official state business.
Henning contends the per diem is another way for the Alaska governor to line her pockets at the state’s expense:
As a Wasilla resident I know that thousands of valley residents commute into Anchorage for work every day. They don’t receive checks from their employers for sleeping at home. Governor Palin does. And it’s wrong, not to mention unethical, for her to even submit these per diem claims. To me, this is a roundabout way for Palin to give herself a raise.
“The Governor is quitting her job,” said Henning, “and now more than ever the State of Alaska, along with its residents, need to be reimbursed for the per diem charges, including interest and a fine...[I]t is up to private citizens, like myself, to hold our Governor accountable.”
A govt 'for the people' today has an entirely different meaning than it did in Lincoln's day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.