Notice how the mainstream media, and the left, try to put too much weight on words--more weight than the words can bear--when they are trying to destroy someone. Now when they are trying to defend someone, like the true hate speech of Reverend Wright, they will dismiss words as meaningless. For example, that CNN racist, Soledad O'Brien', called Reverend Wright's racist speech before the Detroit NAACP a "great speech". I heard her. The next day Obama disowned Wright, after an even more racist, and "hate America" remarks by Wright. Obama, of course, had not disowned Wright over those same statements previously, or over that racist speech before the Detroit NAACP. I digress (not really, as usual).
This entry is about "abuse of power". That phrase covers a multitude of "sins". Most executives "abuse" power. Is it an "abuse of power" for a boss to ream out his secretary because he is frustrated with his own mistakes, or events beyond anyone's control. Sure it is. Is it an "abuse of power" for an executive to make someone stay late to correct a mistake of the bss, even though it could wait until tomorrow. Is it not an "abuse of power" fr an executive to pettishly cause a secretary to have to break a date to stay late on "make work" stuff, because the boss is mad at the secretary. Those are all "abuses of power", although I have deliberately tried to make them as minor as possible. Yet, when the mainstream media (or leftists counting on mainstream media support) wants to destroy someone, they take a phrase like "abuse of power" and distort the meaning out of all reason--making things like the above "disqualifying" for political office.
Let us go to Hillary Clinton, and the White House Travel Office. Yes, Bill Clinton was the one with the power, but Hillary Clinton had the power to get her husband to act. Best evidence is that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton "abused power" with regard to the employees of the White House travel office. They fired them on what appeared to be "trumped up" charges, just so Hillary could get people she liked in the job. The mainstream media was never much interested. "Rigt wing" media was, although they probably tried to make too much out of it. It was an "abuse of power", but probably pretty minor.
Minor as the White House Travel Office was ("Travelgate"--we have to stop putting "gate" on the end of these things), it was a bigger deal than what Palin has been found to have done in Alaska. Yet the mainstream media, and politicians out to "get" Palin, have tried to put all of that weight on "abuse of poser", as if all abuses of power are the same. They are not. Some are not significant. Others (putting your political opponents in jail, or having them shot), are outrageous. Palin's alleged "abuse of power" falls into the "insignificant" category, and using the term "abuse of poser" does not change that.
It is universally agreed that Palin had grounds to fire the police commissioner in Alaska, and the power to do so He was "insubordinate", by any standards. Actually, he tried to stab her in the back (politically. Any good governor, who did not want her own administration undermined by her own employees, would have fired him. That was essentially the "finding" of that investigation in Alaska (pretty much politically motivated from the beginning, and which the mainstream media has tried to make into a "big dea", while sanctimonious hypocrites are still saying that we should concentrate on "issues' like the economy).
What "abuse of power" did the "lawmakers" find Palin committed? She put pressure--so the finding goes--on the police commissioner to fire her former brother-in-law (that state trooper). Now the broter-in-law was not fired. Further, his record was not good. The governor had direct knowledge that he had threatened to kill her father. How wrong was it to suggest that this "state trooper" was not fit to hold a job with a gun? He was reprimanded (slap of the wrist) from multiple bad conduct that he was found to have committed. A governor might legitimately be concerned about this guy.
But let us assume that Palin went too far to use the power of her office as governor to pursue a personal score. The state trooper is evidently protected by a union. It was always going to be difficult to "fire" him. But say that too much "pressure" was put on the police commissioner to harass the guy. So what. This is about as minor an "abuse of power" as you can get. The guy was not fired. The guy who was fired--the police commissioner--had done more than enough to get himself fired. This is in a class with the boss forcing a scetary to cancel his or her plans, or yelling at the secretary for no reason. It may not be right, but it is hardly significant (unless part of an extensive pattern of such conduct, which has not been shown with Palin).
Nope. The "hate Palin" crowd of elite snobs and anti-Palin politicians are putting entirely too much weight on the phrase "abuse of power". Many "abuses of power" are just too minor to worry about. This is one of them. "Travelgate" may have been another, even if I have characterized it (correctly, I think) as a little more serous, since people were actually fired.
I will wait for someone to explain to me why it is a serious "abuse of power" to try to use the power of your office to affect the job of a state trooper, when you don't even succeed (or try to do anything to the state trooper directly). If you want to look like a fool--like the mainstream media looks--I invite you to explain to me why this is serous. No, I am not talking about whether she should have done what her office did (emails and maybe phone calls asking the police commissioner to "look into" this state trooper--even he admits she never asked the police commissioner to actually fire the state trooper). Who cares whether she should have done it or not. It is not significant, and no reasonable person can say it is. As I say, I am calling you a fool if you say it is serious. Defend yourself if you can. I say you can't, for a position that stupid.
P.S. Again. I want to make it crystal clear here. I know how leftists think--how stupid they think. I am not interested in arguing over whether Palin should have "pressured" the police commissioner to put pressure on that state trooper. I don't care wether she should have or not. It is not important, and never was important. What I am saying is that only a fool (or partisan hack) would suggest this is a serious abuse of poser worthy of being an "issue" in the Presidential campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment