NYT investigative report: Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes

[citymama]

Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes
New York Times
Sept 13 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

I haven't seen much in the way of detailed investigative reporting on VP candidate Sarah Palin's background. This multi-part New York Times report ran over the weekend, and is worth a read, whatever your political leanings, and however you plan to vote. Incredibly eye-opening about the way that small-town politics (and perhaps state/national as well) can be used for settling personal scores.

On a lighter note: as I read this, I kept scratching my head and wondering who Palin reminds me of. No, it's not Tina Fey - it's Dolores Umbridge from the Harry Potter series! Anyone else see the similarity?

[kijip]

Thanks for the link to the article. I had not seen it and my husband and I enjoyed reading the article.

That said, I think Palin is a far more engaging and dynamic person than the Umbridge HP character. Umbridge would not have 80% approval ratings :). The comparison does not seem fair to me.

[mominjune]

I enjoyed reading the article as well. Thanks!

I even linked to some of the blogs mentioned in the article, and found those interesting as well. I liked how it was very specifically and locally cited (seems like they were able to get into her hometown and talk to lots of people), and from the New York Times, which to me is a credible source, although known to have a liberal lean.

ETA: I wish I knew who the Delores Umbridge character is- I haven't had time to read a HP book since about book 3, and I don't remember her in those first 3 books. :)

[wellyes]

Hey mominjune, Umbridge is very prominent in the most recent Harry Potter movie, which is worth a rental!

I don't think the comparison is right though. To me the obvious person that Palin represents in George W. Bush...... the anti-intellectualism, the cronyism, the vendettas - and yes, they are both not short on charm, either. She is a much better speaker though.

[mommy111]

I have to say in all fairness, though, if you're looking to reform and don't want all the usual govt characters, who do you go to but friends you studied or worked with and know are good and efficient. To me what is far more concerning is what is happening in the trooper investigation right now.

[niccig]

I have to say in all fairness, though, if you're looking to reform and don't want all the usual govt characters, who do you go to but friends you studied or worked with and know are good and efficient. .

You open up the selection process to the community, you advertise for applications. Maybe there was someone else better qualified than the friend that loved cows - that's if that part of the article about loving cows is true.

[mommy111]

You open up the selection process to the community, you advertise for applications. Maybe there was someone else better qualified than the friend that loved cows - that's if that part of the article about loving cows is true.

Do we really do that for political posts in a person's administration? And is there any evidence that she didn't? It sounds like she chose people she knew were good at what they did, not that she didn't interview a ton of applicants. And how large a place is Alaska? (I'm not asking any of this rhetorically, I really don't know, my knowledge of Alaska extends to polar bears live there and we bought it and that's all). Because if you come from a relatively small state and are well connected in the community, there is a good chance that you pretty much know everyone there in some way or another (friend, classmate's brother, colleague's spouse etc).
Like I said, I find the firing part of the business (librarian, trooper etc) and the refusal to cooperate with a bipartisan investigation in which a majority of the investigative members are republican, far more concerning than the hiring of friends.

[niccig]

And is there any evidence that she didn't? It sounds like she chose people she knew were good at what they did, not that she didn't interview a ton of applicants.

I've heard that she choose friends and people she knew. Did she interview other people? Don't know. Were there other people better qualified, but she still choose friends? Again, don't know. These are answers I want to know as they'll answer the question of cronyism in the administration or not.

You were asking who would you choose if you didn't want political people already there. And my answer is that you seek out applications for a position and you go through a selection process.

[mommy111]

I've heard that she choose friends and people she knew. Did she interview other people? Don't know. Were there other people better qualified, but she still choose friends? Again, don't know. These are answers I want to know as they'll answer the question of cronyism in the administration or not.



This is exactly what disturbed me about the NYT investigation...the things that it did not mention. Maybe she interviewed a whole bunch of people and found out that her friends were the most capable. Maybe she shortlisted to 2 or 3 and said, you know, these other guys look good on paper but I KNOW that Jack/Judy/Jim can deliver so I'm going to hire them. These are all things that the NYT needed to mention, otherwise this piece just looks like a piece of the much-touted liberal media bias at best and liberal mud-slinging at worst and not a true investigative report.
.....which is all academic to me, because you couldn't pay me a million to vote the McCain-Palin direction anyway :)