UPDATE

Statement from the McCain campaign:

"Today's report shows that the Governor acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan. The report also illustrates what we've known all along: this was a partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior. Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact. The Governor is looking forward to cooperating with the Personnel Board and continuing her conversation with the American people regarding the important issues facing the country."

Also for those in the comments who did not care to read the wikipedia article, The investigation was led by a Democrat, the lead investigator is a Democrat. It is his report.

___________________

As Tommy has been following the story, and I have too, thought I'd better put my two cents in. It's a big shock I know, but Democrats in Alaska, with possible collusion from that old boy's network that Sarah rails on against, have found her guilty... of firing a dude she had every legal right to fire.

The findings were released after lawmakers emerged Friday from a private session in Anchorage where they spent more than six hours discussing a politically charged ethics report into the firing by Gov. Palin.

The legislative panel began its public session by discussing whether to release the report's findings. The investigation was examining whether Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, fired a state commissioner to settle a family dispute. The report also is expected to touch on whether Palin's husband meddled in state affairs and whether her administration inappropriately accessed employee medical records.

Critics claim Palin fired Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan after months of pressure on him to fire Mike Wooten, a state trooper involved in a nasty divorce and custody dispute with the governor's sister.

"I think there are some problems in this report," Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."

Not the least of which is that Hollis French, the lead legislator and Branchflower, the investigator, are both big Obama guys. And if you're one of the sick, twisted individuals who is interested in this story (like me!), you'll find all you want and more at the appropriate wikipedia article. And of course there is the other side of the story.

What happens next? Nobody knows from what I can see. I suppose there is a statute on the books for abuse of power that a prosecutor could try, but do the legislators in Alaska (most of them GOP) really have the gumption to go after a governor on this flimsy of a deal given that she has a 70% approval rating? But maybe they're not needed to authorize an investigation. Who has jurisdiction? Lots of questions there.

I think she is going to get her hand slapped and told to build a better paper trail next time. And this is why the old boys network, stays the old boys network. They have a way of closing ranks. So Sarah supporters will be convinced this is a witch hunt, Sarah haters will be convinced they found a witch, and nobody else will care much, cause they just see a lot of politicians doing what politicians do.

Update: 8:33 pm - The bipartisan panel has concluded that Palin did abuse her power. From The AP:

A legislative committee investigating Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has found she unlawfully abused her authority in firing the state's public safety commissioner.

The investigative report concludes that a family grudge wasn't the sole reason for firing Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan but says it likely was a contributing factor.

Update: 8:18 pm - The council has voted unanimously to release the report.

The Anchorage Daily News is covering the Alaska legislature's meeting, in which they will decide whether to release the "Troopergate" investigator's report:(all times AKST)

4:11 p.m.The Legislative Council just voted 12-0 to release the report, except for certain parts they consider confidential.

3:55 p.m.: You can stream audio of the meeting here.

3:45 p.m. The leg council just opened it's doors. We're expecting a vote ...

3 p.m.: So here's something to consider while we wait for the Legislative Council to vote -- and yes, we're still waiting:

The council needs eight votes to release the investigator's report. Three members of the 14-member council aren't here

Rep. Ralph Samuels, Rep. John Harris and Sen. Gary Wilken. === Unless they called in after the meeting started, that means they're automatic "no votes."

Here's a link to the live audio, but the server seems to be slammed, so you might not be able to get it.

Palin had very little to lose, politically, by cooperating with the investigation. Refusing to appear before the legislature was a political misstep for the Republican's VP nominee. The contents of the report might actually help Palin, if they spin it right.

Check back here for updates as this story develops.

Update: Here's another clip of McCain trying to dial back a hostile crowd. As I said before, McCain is making a good start, but he has to follow through with some acknowledgment of his part in this ugliness. The McCain that many Americans used to admire would do it.




I want very much to give credit to John McCain for finding his sense of decency. In my kindest thoughts about the GOP candidate, I think he was an honorable man, being pushed by rabid strategists into an ugly, incendiary strategy.

At a rally today, McCain was forced to defend Obama, and I think I detected sincere regret in McCain's voice and visage. His actions going forward will be the crucible of that sincerity.

I think McCain has been hit squarely in the face by just how dangerous his and Sarah Palin's recent character attacks on Obama have been.

Here's the video:

A new joint ad by the Republican Natinoal Committee and the John McCain campaign has been released titled "Ambition." It is :30 seconds.

Conservatives are frothing at the mouth over Newsweek's new cover photo of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, which they say should have been retouched. From CBS:

Despite countless magazine pictures and covers with similarly unflattering pix of Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (and his wife, Michelle), this one, they whine, shows too many wrinkles and too much unsightly facial hair and was taken from too close an angle. Apparently you've got to see one in person to get the full effect.

You can sample the apoplexy in the video below.

Also making waves are the now-infamous Reuters "upskirt" photos, which make it appear as though McCain supporters are looking up Palin's skirt. Silly boys, that's the government's job.

I haven't seen the cover up close, but you can tell it's an uncomfortably close shot. Wahhh! Hillary Clinton dealt with far worse. I don't think it's that bad a shot of her.

What bothers me more is that Newsweek, along with the rest of the media, refuses to show the real ugliness of Sarah Palin and John McCain. All of this hand-wringing about supposedly sexist photographs, yet nary a mention of the ticket's hostility towards women's issues.

I issued a challenge to our readers to spread the story of Palin's rape kit policy, emailing it to everyone they could think of. I would suggest that a reasonable response to this Newsweek story would be to email it to them, too. Maybe then, they'll reveal something important about McCain/Palin besides some peachfuzz.

Tommy Christopher co-hosts "Unusable Signal",on BlogTalkRadio, Tues through Thurs at 10pm, and Fri, and Sat at 11pm. (Eastern) Click here for the Unusable Signal homepage.

Is it me, or is the McCain campaign getting desperate?

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

ANNCR: Since 1960, there have been over 10,000 sightings of Bigfoot.

Dozens of photographs have been taken.

(Dissolve Bigfoot photos with Obama photos)

But has Barack Obama ever been photographed with Bigfoot?

Has even one eyewitness claimed to see them in the same room together?

(Dissolve to floating graphic: "FEET")

Barack Obama is known to have at least two feet.

But have you ever seen a picture of them?

Why won't Obama let us see his feet?

Feet.

Photographs.

Eyewitnesses.

Barack Obama.

Can America risk electing another Sasquatch?

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

Tommy Christopher co-hosts "Unusable Signal" , on BlogTalkRadio Tues & Thur at 9pm, and Wed, Fri, & Sat at 11pm. Click here for the Unusable Signal homepage.

Read all about it in Tina Brown's new juggernaut, The Daily Beast. Christopher Buckley, a successful author in his own right, started out this campaign as a McCain supporter. So what turned him away from the Arizona senator?

This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget "by the end of my first term." Who, really, believes that? Then there was his self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking.

To borrow Political Machine's term, what about "The Affirmative Case" for Obama?

He has exhibited throughout a "first-class temperament," pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s most famous comment about FDR? As for his intellect, well, he's a Harvard man, though that's sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days... ...I've read Obama's books, and they are first rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets... Obama has in him--I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy "We are the people we have been waiting for" silly rhetoric--the potential to be a good, perhaps even a great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

Read the full piece here. This continues a micro-trend: Descendants of famous conservative figures who are endorsing Obama. Read Susan Eisenhower's (granddaughter of Dwight D.) here. And a few other Republicans disenchanted by what they've seen from McCain of late can be read here.

via Cindy Adams:

SOCCER moms and Joe Sixpacks, listen up. Get your beer, mooseburgers and caribou dips ready. Sarah Palin is doing "Saturday Night Live." Not Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin doing "Saturday Night Live." But the Sarah Herself. She has already OK'd it. She's booked. It's confirmed. Done deal. Sketches are being sketched as we speak. She - eyeglasses, haircomb, designer jacket and trunkful of gosh-darns, golly-gees and gol-dangs - will be on "SNL" Saturday night, Oct. 25. Sarah's rehearsal time has already been penciled in for Friday the 24th. And it's because she wants to do it.

This ought to be fun, and of course a ratings bonanza. One of the ideas floating around is that Palin would spoof Tina Fey's Amex commercials.

Hmmm, what could she do with this?

I know, assistant rushes in "McCain's campaign is on fire!". Good possibilities.

I have long hated McMansions for a simple aesthetic reason: they're ugly. With their stone veneer facades (an authentic Atlanta chateau!), "Palladian windows" (rounded on top, usually over the front door) and four-car garages, most of these starter castles are atrocities from the outside. They're equally abominable on the inside: who among us has walked through a "Great Room" and not expected to meet The Bachelor's Chris Harrison waiting with a rose?

Of course these houses (can a McMansion ever be a "home"?) are more than just ugly. Their lack of proportion is revealing: Don't the owners realize how transparent they're being, moving into a house with a footprint nearly equal to its plot of land? A faux chateau for the faux successful. A Hummer House for a Hummer driver who can't get a hummer without paying for it.


There's no place like ... wait, is that my home? Or am I in the one next to it?


They're a child's version of "fancy," in the same way that a child's favorite color is purple. Ironic, since the adults who move into these Garage Mahals, these Frankenhouses, often have one or no children at all! I remember visiting one when I lived in Plano, TX (Plano's Palazzos are among the most exquisite). The colleague of mine who lived there had one child. I remember seeing the kid play wanly with a bunch of toys strewn sadly in the back corner of the uncarpeted Great Room. Who knew that loneliness could echo?

I don't care so much if they're built for subdivisions, on empty land. (The contrast between a Tucson Tudor and the surrounding saplings is hilarious.) What really gets me ticked is when houses with any distinct character are purchased as "tear downs," only to be razed for a McMansion. All too often that means throwing off whatever balance the neighorhood may have had, ignoring the sensitivities of people who've lived down the street for years. It's the ultimate in unneighborliness. (The equivalent of bumping into somebody at a party, spilling punch all over him/her, then reaching past to grab the last deviled egg, all without ever saying "hello" or "excuse me.")


Cruella de Villa


About four years ago, when I was doing pieces for NBC's Today, I pitched a story about my hatred for McMansions. The suburban Maryland neighborhood I grew up in, where my mother still lives (in a 3-bedroom split-level) was hardly historic. Our house was built in 1958. Still the neighborhood was charming. Care was taken by the developer to give each house a personality. And the houses had lawns! [Funny: until I was about 6, Senator Ted Stevens lived catty-corner to us in a nice, surprisingly modest house. (Okay, modest for a crook.) His house had what seemed to me then like a giant hilly front yard. One of my earliest memories in life is playing King of the Hill with his kids. Alas, ours was an unassuming "Neighborhood to Nowhere" so Stevens moved on to bigger more prosecutable things.]

But about 10 years ago, a blemish appeared up the street. Could it be Beltway Baronial? Indeed our neighborhood was hit with a neo-Classical cancer that metastasized quickly. (Whoever develops a vaccine for McMansions has a Nobel waiting.)

The producer shared my loathing for McMansions but turned down the pitch: "We can't do that story, Mo. Our audience is mostly people who want to live in those houses." He had a point, even though I was certain that there was a grumbling silent majority (?) out there who could see that 100 years from now, a Persian Palace in LA will still have no charm.


Need more turrets!!!

But now, with the financial collapse of the Western World, there comes a very thin but nonetheless gleaming silver lining: we can all trash McMansions and their pseudo-squire owners -- and we can even do it with a sense of righteousness! Too many of them bought beyond their means and ruined neighborhoods in the process. (March '08's Atlantic speculates that some deserted McMansion subdivisions may even become slums!)

What do you think? Do you hate McMansions? Or am I being unfair? And will McMansions ever have character?


Dear Mr. Gables...