I don't know if this will qualify as a scandal but I am pretty sure you are reading this here first
- Sarah Palin endorsed a contingency lawsuit against one of the State of Alaska's pension consultants after the state legislature refused to bankroll the legal effort:
The state filed a $1.8 billion malpractice lawsuit Thursday against a consulting firm it claims is a reason Alaska's public employee pension system is in crisis.
The state alleges that Mercer Human Resource Consulting Inc. gave negligent advice and even made basic math errors. Mercer was the state's actuary company and advised Alaska on its public employee and teacher retirement systems for nearly 30 years until being replaced in 2005.
"Fully aware of the billions of dollars at stake, Mercer nevertheless made fundamental errors in methodology and even in basic calculations, and failed to assign competent, experienced personnel to work for the plans," the state charged in its lawsuit.
The state claims Mercer badly miscalculated the growth rate of health care costs. Public employers used Mercer's actuarial information in deciding how much they should contribute to the pension funds.
...
Gov. Sarah Palin asked the Legislature this spring for $12 million to pay for the lawsuit. Lawmakers refused to give her the money.
"At that time my concerns had not been answered as to the probability of prevailing in the lawsuit," said Anchorage Republican Rep. Mike Hawker, a member of the Finance Committee.
The state has instead negotiated a contingency agreement with the law firm it retained to assist in the suit. The firm will get a percentage of whatever award Alaska receives after costs, ranging from 25 percent if the award is up to $200 million to 5 percent if Alaska prevails for more than a billion dollars.
That New York firm -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison -- is also paying the Juneau firm of Lessmeier and Winters to help.
Hawker said the contingency seems to be a responsible way for the state to pursue what could be challenging litigation.
Sitka Republican Sen. Bert Stedman also said he's comfortable with that approach to the suit.
"Clearly there's some question as far as the quality of work done by Mercer," said Stedman, co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee.
The lawsuit was filed in Alaska Superior Court in Juneau.
Here is a bit of the Google-cache of a gone-but-not-forgotten State of Alaska announcement:
State Files Suit Against Mercer Seeks $1.8 Billion in Damages
December 6, 2007, Juneau, Alaska - Governor Palin today announced the filing of a lawsuit by Attorney General Talis Colberg and the Department of Law against Mercer (US) Inc., the former actuary for Alaska’s Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) and Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) pension plans. The lawsuit seeks more than $1.8 billion in damages from Mercer for mistakes in calculating the pension plans’ expected liabilities, including mistaken actuarial assumptions and methods about future health care costs, and basic mathematical and technical errors.
“I am committed to aggressively pursuing the ’healing’ of Alaska’s retirement plans so the burden of the several-billion-dollar unfunded liability does not fall on the backs of ordinary citizens. Filing this lawsuit is an important step in that process,” Governor Palin said.
Here is other coverage. If a PACER maven could track that suit through what I presume is the Federal Court in Juneau that would be lovely. I am reasonably certain the suit is still alive because I heard about it at a picnic this afternoon from a Mercer employee. Now, a bit of disclosure - my source probably would not have been a Palin fan even absent the lawsuit; OTOH, he was explicit in saying he had no idea whether she was involved with the suit. From the reporting she was sufficiently involved to let herself get quoted backing it.
So what does it mean? Well, perhaps Republican disdain for trial lawyers and speculative contingency lawsuits is a sometime thing. Superficially this suit appears to me to be yet another public entity that would prefer to flail about and sue someone rather than than admit that they deliberately under-funded their pension plans in order to avoid raising taxes or cutting services. But I say that as a Jersey guy where that sort of behavior was the norm; maybe Alaska has a legitimate beef here. Maybe. In any case, Ms. Palin would not have been governor during the period if underfunding, but she could have blown the whistle on the lawsuit.
This is by no means a major scandal even if the lawsuit is substantially without merit. Let's file it under "Troubling". By way of comparison, file this under "How does he keep a straight face?"
Color me surprised to see Andy suddenly interested in the contents of a Vagina.
Posted by: Sammy | August 31, 2008 at 10:48 PM
I'll file it under "Not Troubling in the Slightest." TM, you got a problem with this? If so, what, exactly, is the problem?
Is this your fastball?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | August 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Tom, you've got disdain for trial lawyers, vs suing the hell out of a company that apparently at least arguably cost AK 1.8 billion with a 'b' dollars.
And a political establishment that hired the consulting firm refusing to pay for the lawsuit.
Yeah, this one's gonna hurt Palin. You bet.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | August 31, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Of course, Paul Weiss is not your father's plaintiff's firm. It is a top-drawer Wall Street firm that takes very few contingency fee cases. Informed speculation: The case is in fact a winner and Paul Weiss thinks it will make a bundle. Rank speculation: Palin could not get the money for the lawsuit for some reason unrelated to its merits. Perhaps she had already irritated some legislator who blocked it, or Mercer had some pull with an important legislator.
Posted by: TigerHawk | August 31, 2008 at 11:06 PM
TM-
Here's the complaint. Its a big file, 6.5 meg pdf
Posted by: RichatUF | August 31, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Well let me put my two cents in on contingency fees. I have always thought they are the most fair way to bill a client. Too many lawyers take stupid cases because they can milk their clients for an hourly rate. With a contingency fee the lawyer works for free unless he prevails - sometimes for years. It's in the lawyer's best interest to not put their client thru litigation they cannot win.
Now too often lawyers also file suit as a means of extortion - it's cheaper for the defendant to pay than to go forward with litigation - Elliott Spitzer was the king of that. But I doubt someone is gonna take a case this big, with this much at stake if they didn't have a good chance of winning it.
Posted by: Jane | August 31, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Even if this is a huge scandal, it won't be a problem. The election is in 2 months and it will take 6 months to explain what this issue even is. And that blurb above ain't gonna do it.
Let's go back to the Palin in bikini pics scandal. Easy and interesting.
Posted by: Average Voter | August 31, 2008 at 11:23 PM
The Fallon AZ McCain/Palin rally is now up on CSPAN. There's no sound for the preliminary music, so fast forward.
Posted by: JB | August 31, 2008 at 11:27 PM
BFD; this is nada.
Posted by: Captain Hate | August 31, 2008 at 11:31 PM
I did a quick speed reading of the compaint and an outside audit discovered 3 signficant errors in the calculations and Mercer wrote an internal memo (State of Alaska Team) which agreed with the outside auditor and that memo was kept from the retirement board (items #60, 61). If those items are true, I don't see why this would be a Gov. Palin scandal?
Posted by: RichatUF | August 31, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Just when it looks like Sullivan can't get any worse... When is Obama gonna release all his medical records BTW?
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | August 31, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Posted by: jpe | August 31, 2008 at 11:42 PM
I reject TM's basic premise that there is something inherently wrong with contingency lawsuits. There isn't. There is something very wrong with such lawsuits when brought by unscrupulous, even criminal, plaintiffs' attorneys like Bill Lerach and Terry Christensen. (The former is rightly in federal prison and the latter is awaiting sentencing. I am hoping to find an appropriate dating service for him once he reaches the Big House.)
I have often referred clients to reputable, honorable lawyers who work on a contingency basis when the circumstances warrant it. Those circumstances generally mean a good chance of success and a desire to economize on fees (or inability to pay such fees) on the part of the client.
Paul Weiss is indeed not your average contingency firm. Neither was my firm, but when conditions were right we didn't hesitate to proceed that way.
Has TM outsourced to a substitue host for the holiday weekend, or what?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | August 31, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Well, perhaps Republican disdain for trial lawyers and speculative contingency lawsuits is a sometime thing.
I'm an absolutist. I say, disband the civil legal system altogether, and deal with disputes by some combination of pistol duels and cockfighting.
I'll defer to the legal opinions of the above commenters, and just add that politically, this sounds like it plays into the "take on the big [party officials, oil companies, financial companies] who aren't playing by the rules" theme.
Posted by: bgates | August 31, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Yawn.
Posted by: Daddy | August 31, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Sounds to me like there was a scandal--not hers though. I suppose if the legislature refused to authorize engaging counsel if *MAY* have been because the people charged with wrongdoing had pals who covered for them by voting down the authorization. If that is the case, hiring counsel on a contingency was a damned smart way out of that.
I agree with Jane and DoT the good reputation of the counsel who were hired, suggests there is a substantial likelihood that AK will prevail in the suit.
Posted by: clarice | August 31, 2008 at 11:56 PM
TM:
So, I guess your first Palin post was not a joke after all. Maybe I'm not following you here, but I don't get how this rises to "troubling," let alone an even minor potential scandal.
Superficially, it appears to me that since Palin was not governor at the time, it's bit much to expect her to do a mea culpa for under-funding during someone else's tenure, and to fault her for failing to raise taxes & cut constituent services, in favor of seeking reparations from the responsible parties first. But that's just me.I can't believe I'm saying this, but you remind me of Teddy Kennedy in nomination hearings, saying ominously, "I have concerns." Is this the best the whispering campaign can come up with? ''Cause that's what I'd call it when a Mercer employee just happens to tee up this story, with a self-serving (who moi?) disclaimer about not knowing if an endorsement was the extent of Palin's involvement.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 12:09 AM
"This is by no means a major scandal even if the lawsuit is substantially without merit."
Lemme get this straight. Our host seriously entertains the notion that Paul Weiss Rifkind & Garrison is going to accept a plaintiff's case on a contingency basis, even though it might be substantially without merit?
No doubt about it: Someone is subbing for Maguire for the holiday. Someone who ain't thinking it through.
This is like when Johnny Carson used to go on vacation. Please, please--no more David Brenner.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 01, 2008 at 12:27 AM
TM ~ TK, JMH? C'mon. I think he's wrong, but if he's nonplussed by the Palin pick, let him air his arguments. We can attack the argument without going after our host.
Teddy Kennedy. Jeeesh.
Posted by: bgates | September 01, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Calls 'em as I sees 'em bgates. Just chalk it up as a gurl thang. :-)
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 12:41 AM
No, TM does not equal TK. TM's sub equals David Brenner.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 01, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Well, I could have used Pat Leahy or Chuck Schumer or any of the other guys who find a nominee's record "troubling" or who have vague unspecified "concerns" or any of the other code words for "We got nuthin'" -- but the last time I heard it, it happened to be Teddy. So sue me!
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 01:00 AM
And don't forget ol' Tom Daschle, who was permanently "disappointed."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 01, 2008 at 01:12 AM
As I said above, I'm against that kind of thing.
Pistols at dawn!
Posted by: bgates | September 01, 2008 at 01:13 AM
TM's brain has obviously been invaded by someone.
I would never have been able to bring my police brutality suit against the county and sheriff's dept. if not for my attorney taking it on a contingency basis. And then when I won, he took his percentage and a week later sent me back a check for an additional $2000 because he felt I did most of the legwork to get the case together.
TM, we get it you don't like her, but this does seem a bit beneath you to call this a "not yet reporte scandal" as if there really was some there there.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 01, 2008 at 01:17 AM
Yawn...
BTW, the announcement is still on the official site here:
http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-63732.html
and here:
http://gov.state.ak.us/print_news-26634.html
The top-level news page contains only a handful of recent press releases and NONE from 2007 when the press release you reference was issued...looks more like poor website design rather than anything nefarious. Next time, use the on-site search before you accuse someone of flushing inconvenient content down the memory hole.
Posted by: DCS | September 01, 2008 at 01:21 AM
Well received in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri is all good news. I guess we can let Connecticut do their own thing, if we can wrap up these three.
How Palin Is Playing - Another Report from Ohio:
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 01, 2008 at 01:34 AM
It's unlikely that Governor Palin *personally* asked for $12 Million dollars to pay for the suit. More likely, the state legal counsel included that in a routine request she signed off on and sent to the legislature to fund.
Posted by: Orion | September 01, 2008 at 01:35 AM
Well, every few months TM runs a "Bush isn't all that" post. I think he does it to get our thinking lined up for the cyber-wars that are still to come. It works.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | September 01, 2008 at 01:38 AM
See what happens when you start this sh!t.
OBAMA'S TRUE PARENTAGE: IS BARACK OBAMA REALLY THE BIOLOGICAL SON OF FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS?
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 01, 2008 at 01:38 AM
"Pistols at dawn!"
May I suggest pies? That would be American Apple Pies, of course.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 01:47 AM
Speaking of parentage,
this is also enlightening
Posted by: baked alaska | September 01, 2008 at 01:54 AM
A marvelous by-product of this election season has been the catastrophic meltdown of Andrew Sullivan before our very eyes. I detest the man, and have long wished him ill. My prayers are now being answered in ways I would never have dared hope for.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 01, 2008 at 01:56 AM
She looks very pregnant in these two pics:
Link
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 01, 2008 at 01:56 AM
OMG, just picketd this up out of an American Thinker article:
Piloting her own bush plane around Alaska.
With everything else, she's a pilot too.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 01, 2008 at 02:35 AM
"Piloting her own bush plane around Alaska "
Palin has that whole larger than life thing going for her, doesn't she? Obama's suddenly beginning to look like the small town boy here. If America is as hungry for change as the Democrats have been claiming, they will eat this stuff up.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 02:41 AM
Here's the question I left for Mr. Colmes. Guys, avert you eyes.
Dear Dr. Alan
I have an itch of a very personal nature. I’ve heard you are an expert in this area. And of course I am interested in only the best of care. May I make an appointment as soon as possible please?
Sorry Guys
Posted by: bad | September 01, 2008 at 02:42 AM
I wouldn't even bother with the pregnant pix, Sarah. The idiots are stewing in their own poisonous juices, why even interrupt the process?
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 02:45 AM
Before you know it, bad, MayBee will be pushing your name for Secretary of State.
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 02:49 AM
If I'm to be called a racist by the dems because I'm not voting for Obama and his Marxist agenda, then I call every man and woman not voting for McCuda a sexist pig. Fair is fair.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 01, 2008 at 02:52 AM
Colmes would be smart to avoid the comments on his site. They are very descriptive and some of the questions are posed by men.
So funny.
Posted by: bad | September 01, 2008 at 02:53 AM
Maybee has this awesome talent of cutting through the carp. She rocks!!
Posted by: bad | September 01, 2008 at 02:57 AM
Sara:
I'm not sure how well that worked out for them, but party on! :-)
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 02:58 AM
This is my last thought for today.
Sarah Palin is, in my vision, the ultimate feminist. Ballsy, bright, and beautiful.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 01, 2008 at 02:59 AM
JMH: Tongue in cheek, my dear, tongue in cheek. :)
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | September 01, 2008 at 03:01 AM
Sara: I had my last real thought of the day a couple of hours ago.:)
Posted by: JM Hanes | September 01, 2008 at 03:06 AM
Let me get this right. A firm defrauded the state of Alaska 1.8billion dollars. Gov Palin called them out sued to get the money back abd the corrupt Alaska gov refused to give her the money to figth the corruption. So this is a scandal how. Palin is a reformer this confirms that veiw and will go along way with the fiscal conservative base. Boy are you grasping for crap now.
Posted by: unseen | September 01, 2008 at 03:11 AM
Danube of Thought - yours: "Has TM outsourced to a substitute host for the holiday weekend, or what?"
Perhaps the real TM has been kidnapped. How do we verify the imposter's identity? Does anyone have TM's cell phone number so we can make sure he's alive and well?
I remember having this sensation once before during Plamegate, around mid '05.
Posted by: BR | September 01, 2008 at 05:43 AM
Good Morning to All!
Here's hoping all are safe.
I thought someone had suggested a boycott of Andrew Sullivan. I second the idea.
Instead of being a scandal, I see the Alaska lawsuit as being a real plus for Palin, based on what I have read here.
Posted by: Pagar | September 01, 2008 at 07:12 AM
Hiya Pager,
The holiday continues. I stayed up late to watch Palin and McCain on CSpan. She's a better speaker than McCain, and had more substance in the first minute of her remarks than Obama spewed on the entire continent of Europe.
Posted by: Jane | September 01, 2008 at 07:28 AM
Let's give TM a break. If you spent your day at a picnic with overeducated lefty women and their husbands (probably the one I saw at starbucks with the mama for obama bumpersticker was there too) you would crack too. Give him a day to come to his senses.
Posted by: Lori | September 01, 2008 at 07:32 AM
Seems to me this is just the sort of "scandal" that will raise Palin's stock even further. Do small-town hick mayors sue pension consultants for billions of dollars on behalf of their employees? Obama hasn't ever been involved in protecting his employees' pensions, or suing anyone on behalf of people who work for him, or even whom he represents, has he? Anyway, this is just the sort of serious business the Dems would hesitate to associate with the Palin cutout they're trying to construct.
And Andrew Sullivan has always been an a**hole. Still is.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 01, 2008 at 07:49 AM
I am of the opinion that Tom posts what Tom thinks, not to get us to work up our opposition to what is going to come. And we, being minions of the VRWC ignore him and carry on as if he didn't say it. And that is the best thing about JOM. We can have different opinions than the host and he tolerates us. But I think it is insulting to Tom to treat his differing opinions as "tongue in cheek".
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2008 at 07:53 AM
Sue,
I can't even believe we are speculating about it.
Posted by: Jane | September 01, 2008 at 08:10 AM
Mornin', Jane.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 01, 2008 at 08:29 AM
Compare and contrast with Gerard Baker. LUN
My favorite part:
Political Biography
Obama: A classic, if unusually talented, greasy-pole climber. Held a succession of jobs that constitute the standard route to the top in his party's internal politics: "community organizer", law professor, state senator.
Palin:A woman with a wide range of interests in a well-variegated life. Held a succession of jobs - sports journalist, commercial fisherwoman, state oil and gas commissioner, before entering local politics. A resume that suggests something other than burning political ambition from the cradle but rather the sort of experience that enables her to understand the concerns of most Americans..
Posted by: Jane | September 01, 2008 at 08:33 AM
You're up early DOT. Good Morning back atcha!
Posted by: Jane | September 01, 2008 at 08:33 AM
The only scandal here is the proprietor of this blog channelling Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew, who once penned the best humanitarian justification for the liberation of Iraq which I have seen, went off the deep end when Bush came out in favour of a Constitutional amendment on the definition of marriage.
So what's your problem Maguire?
Maguire, this is a great blog with the best commenters on the net so please check to see there's some water the next time you decide to divide into the deep end.
If Mercer was negligent, endorsing a lawsuit against the firm would be another feather in Palin's already crowded cap.
Posted by: Terry Gain | September 01, 2008 at 08:34 AM
"divide into the deep end"
Neat typo, if I do say so myself.
Posted by: Terry Gain | September 01, 2008 at 08:43 AM
I think the scandal would have been "Palin doesn't go after shady firm, costs AK $1.8Bn" had she let this go.
Posted by: MarkD | September 01, 2008 at 08:48 AM
Oh, this is great...Just so I'm up to speed on your "straw grasping"...you are claiming that this is a "scandal." A governor is taking proactive steps to recover money lost due to the incompetence/ misrepresentation of a consultant...She requested funds to pursue it and was denied such that the case would be taken on a contingency basis...
Here's a clue...check who hired the consultant...Check into why the whole issue was being studied in the first place (hint: it was a follow up on corruption that was uncovered by...you guessed it...our next VP). And finally, the case I'm afraid for you is something close to a slam dunk and our next VP was not interested in sharing the eventual civil reward with a blasted law firm in New York City...den of liberal inequity and entitlement.
This is absolutely hilarious...you guys have nothing...and you are sorely lacking in the imagination department such that the only attempts at discrediting this woman have been bizarre.
Posted by: JR | September 01, 2008 at 08:51 AM
Maybe the legislature did not want to sue before because they are entagled with contributions from the management company.
Legislators have a huge influence on who is chosen as and remeains as pension consultants and managers.
That has been a problem here in Massachusetts.
Posted by: Mike | September 01, 2008 at 08:57 AM
No, http://www.americablog.com/2008/08/what-earrings-would-you-choose-for.html>this is a scandal. Via Hot Air, though the link he sends you to is snarking this link, I think.
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Some are even worried they are being petty, but hey, how many soccer moms actually read their blog? Well, they are about to find out. By nightfall, every conservative blog in the internet will be reading their petty comments. ::grin::
Come on bloggers, link it, link it like its 1984.
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2008 at 09:05 AM
So what's your problem Maguire?
I suspect some skeptics don't like to see an arms race over identity politics and are opposed in principle to implicitly fostering it.
I see it more as a demographic opportunity, no different than selecting a VP on the basis of winning a swing state. McCain is playing the card dealt by Hillary and Rush.
Posted by: boris | September 01, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Hey, Sue, that American Princess link was good, too. Wonder which potential first lady she was referring to.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 01, 2008 at 09:14 AM
Bulldoggy.
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2008 at 09:20 AM
I don't want to register at Aravosis, but I would dearly like to pop in and tell them hello. ::grin::
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2008 at 09:21 AM
It seems as if Governor Palin was elected, in part, because of her willingness to take on a Republican network of cronies who seem to be following in the footsteps of the Ohio fellows who came to a belief that if a little corruption was tolerable, perhaps more would be too.
Part of the rational for McCain's pick was to get his thumb wedged a little more firmly in Steven's eye. I don't consider that a bad thing at all. It makes an excellent contrast to Obama's taking the part of the piano player in the Illinois political whorehouse.
Mercer doesn't appear to have been stealing. Their folks just needed to catch the train to the 'burbs and didn't have time to actually, you know, do the work that they were being paid to do. It's not as if those yokels outside of Wall Street can actually count.
We're just fortunate that Mercer didn't have a team working with Bear Stearns or Lehman or Goldman. Otherwise Wall Street's general intelligence might be called into question.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 01, 2008 at 09:24 AM
Good Morning, Jane!
I'm not linking to it because I don' want any complaints about I brought such language to JOM, but the Noquarter site has a very short message for Andrew Sullivan. It won't be hard to find, it kind of stands out.
Posted by: Pagar | September 01, 2008 at 09:27 AM
I think Tom is mixing two things here. Republicans, including myself, can dislike trial lawyers as a group, without being opposed to contingency fees in general.
And, let me add immediately, we can dislike trial lawyers as a group, while still admiring some individual trial lawyers.
A small example: When I was investing in individual stocks, I sometimes found that I was a plaintiff in some class action suit, without my permission and, as far as I could tell, always against my interests. If the case was successful, we small stockholders got something laughable (and saw our investment damaged), while the lawyers who had brought the suit made out like bandits.
So one can think, as I do, that trial lawyers ought to be reined in -- and that they are absolutely necessary in some cases. And I think that if you were to poll Republicans, you would find that most agreed with both sentiments. And I think almost all Republicans accept contingency fees -- in some circumstances.
(As for the Alaska suit, I know nothing about it, and so have no opinion on that subject.)
Posted by: Jim Miller | September 01, 2008 at 09:28 AM
Seems like there are some here who dont understand what actuaries do and why their work is important. But it has big consequences and they are paid very well for their work. If they make mistakes its potential a very big deal that could impact pensioners down the road, so I dont know why they should not be held to a standard that requires that calculations done should be checked and then independently checked. There is just no excuse for the errors as I understand them other than maybe carelessness. That is negligence in lawyer parlance, ordinary or gross to be determined and the penalty if any that should result is what courts do all the time.
Posted by: GMax | September 01, 2008 at 09:33 AM
pagar,
While I agree with the sentiment behind his words, I can't help but laugh at the image of the Cowardly Lion he invokes. He has issued that challenge before and would most likely crap his drawers if anyone actually showed up.
Posted by: Sue | September 01, 2008 at 09:45 AM
Governors should be protective of the public's money. If contractors and consultants perform shoddy work, the Governor should hold them to account. If that includes lawsuits, so be it.
In what world is this a "scandal"? Certainly not in the world of small-government/low-tax conservatives. Perhaps it is a scandal in the world of Trent Lott/Duke Cunningham/Cong. Jerry Lewis/Ted Stevens.... but that is the Republican Party that Palin is dedicated to destroying... and well she should...
I have no idea what Tom is getting at here.
Posted by: rrsafety | September 01, 2008 at 09:53 AM
PAgar: I thought someone had suggested a boycott of Andrew Sullivan. I second the idea.
Nah. A boycott suggests he's worth the effort. Ignore him.
If you must vent on his ideas. Undermine his premises and his logic... and then laugh.
Posted by: sbw | September 01, 2008 at 09:56 AM
Well for once in his sorry existence Larry has dropped the tinfoil and the rest and actually took a stand on the moral high ground. Good for him. Its still LJ and he will be back to nutty stuff soon enough, but if LJ has this reaction you can bet more moderate Democrats will be viscerally appalled by the attacks. And then there are the independents.
And in other cheery news, RAS is reporting that his measurement of party ID has now dropped for August to a net plus of +5.7 to the Dems, down from the May high of +10.2. And of course this includes only a couple weeks of understanding by the voters on how Democrats want high gasoline prices and no impact at all of the Palin selection.
Even in 2004 it was +1.6% for the Dems on election day so while still fairly high, given this fluff candidate, the Republicans are moving into competitive range.
Posted by: GMax | September 01, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Sue,
From his comments section, there are a whole lot of women who want a few minutes with Andrew first, and it doesn't sound like there will be much left for Larry. But some of the posters have some real good suggestions about what people who find the filth being put out by Obama supporters objectionable need to do to let politicians know just how damaging the filth is to the Obama campaign.
Letters to every editor in America, posts on every blog are just a few things that can be done to let everyone know this stuff has penalties and is going to cost them at the voting booths.
Posted by: Pagar | September 01, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Jane, you beat me to that Gerard Baker piece, but not to MY favorite snatches:
Executive experience
Obama: Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of his campaign staff and a vast crowd of traveling journalists
Palin:Makes executive decisions every day that affect the lives of 500,000 people in her state, and that impact crucial issues of national economic interest such as the supply and cost of energy to the United States.
Posted by: anduril | September 01, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Drudge has a pic of Palin's very attractive legs.
Posted by: bad | September 01, 2008 at 10:16 AM
According to Ha'aretz (via Hugh Hewitt):
This is a good example of what I've complained about in re US foreign policy. Why do we have to tip our hand at this point? If we decide that that's the end result we MAY have to reconcile ourselves to, the fact remains that the event is still down the road and many things may change in the next few years. By tipping our hand, Iran could be encouraged to take actions it has so far avoided. I don't know particulars. I'm just saying that, in principle, we should avoid tipping our hand like this. That said, it seems clear enough that the Israelis leaked this in order to pressure the Dems. Foolish on the Dems' part.
Posted by: anduril | September 01, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Terry Gain, 'Divide and conk her head'?
=======================
Posted by: kim | September 01, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Apparently the Mark Foley fiasco was perceived as the achilles heel of the GOP. Now scaring social conservatives is the keen trick to win in politics. They're only pretending to believe this pregnancy carp to keep it in play long enough for the rumors to filter through the thick skulls of the family values herd and make them easy to spook.
Posted by: boris | September 01, 2008 at 10:25 AM
GMax,
Oil just went through $112 on light holiday volume. The Goldman boys must be in the Hamptons. Gustav appears to have an Obama complex - a tremendous amount of hot air dissipating quickly upon contact with resistance. I'm glad the folks on the Gulf Coast are being spared from experiencing a truly significant hurricane.
Has Don Fowler expressed any thoughts on the theological implications of Gustav this morning?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 01, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Pagar, I think that must be an imposter. The Larry that Sue and I know would have put that rant in ALLCAPS, and then banned Sullivan.
=======================================
Posted by: kim | September 01, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Right, Rick, it's beginning to look like a Godsend for the Republicans, particularly with Moore's and Fowler's comments in apposition.
========================
Posted by: kim | September 01, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Biden's a buffoon, anduril, and the sooner the polity understands it the better.
===========================
Posted by: kim | September 01, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Don't miss Sarah Palin Rumors.
Posted by: anduril | September 01, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I cannot think of another pol that needs to hear his own voice.
Posted by: BobS | September 01, 2008 at 10:36 AM
He gives most self-respecting gas bags a bad name. Except for maybe Harry reid of course.
Posted by: BobS | September 01, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Not a bad article: Are Europeans Again Starting to Like Their American Cousin?. Even if Euros are troubled by some aspects of America, they still know we're all basically on the same side.
Posted by: anduril | September 01, 2008 at 10:45 AM
You know if oil drops when a hurricane is coming ashore on the gulf coast where most of our oil drilling platforms are, there may be no floor short of somewhere in the $80 to $100 a barrel range. That is a very very good thing, since $80 is probably rediculous if we would just exploit the known sources we have.
Hello $3 a gallon gasoline, and maybe just maybe folks can afford the heating oil this winter. Will voters exact a punishment on the Democrats for their craven desire to make us all pay more? One can only hope.
Posted by: GMax | September 01, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Here's another pic of Palin to crack you up. Of course, huffPo is in a snit.
How DARE she be part of a boob joke and WHY would her family release SUCH a disgusting picture. blah blah blah
I love Palin more every day.
Posted by: bad | September 01, 2008 at 10:55 AM
oops LUN
Posted by: bad | September 01, 2008 at 10:58 AM
"Piloting her own bush plane around Alaska "
We need a pic of SP confidently esconsed in the cockpit next to a pic of Obama timorously rolling gutter balls with his tie firmly in place... plus the quote of Michelle saying she makes BO pick up his underwear off the floor. What a wuss!
Posted by: DebinNC | September 01, 2008 at 11:05 AM
BTW;
Chaco, I was compiling a bi-partisan list which included Dick Lugar and Chuck Hegel, but I see you are braced for a shooting war and you are on your home court. Nice try, though.
Posted by: Semanticleo | September 01, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Ras has the same numbers as yesterday, Obama +3, 49-46 with leaners.
From the article:
Posted by: Porchlight | September 01, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Did I hear that right from Pagar that LJ is like the Cowardly Lion? God, I love those WOZ anologies. keep em coming
Posted by: BobS | September 01, 2008 at 11:22 AM
First, as a biologist I find the scientific illiteracy of the lefties regarding this Palin slam incredible. Down Syndrome is associated with maternal age!! It is highly unlikely for a Down Syndrome baby to be born to a 16 year old!! Evil and dumb are these lefties.
Second, As a Delawarean I know Joe Biden. If I got asked that question about a heartbeat from the presidency, I would say Palin over Joe in a heartbeat.
Posted by: bio mom | September 01, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Also, it is pleasing to me that the argument about experience is being waged about the Republican vp candidate versus the D presidential candidate. And he looks like a little boy, especially next to his daddy Biden. McCain looks like Palin's father, but that is a more appropriate coupling than Obama/Biden. Also, Biden could pop an aneurysm since he has that history. Without warning like poor Congresswoman Tubbs. Skin cancer is controllable, as we see with McCain. Being 72 increases chances of death but so does cigarette smoking (Obama) and Biden's medical history.
Posted by: bio mom | September 01, 2008 at 11:44 AM
bio mom: I teach Biology to freshmen. Every year I have to spend an entire lesson on undoing the damage Al Gore has done to the Scientific Method. Most of the kids were watching the big concert two summers ago he put I've never despised a politician so much when he said that "climate change" was settled science.
Posted by: BobS | September 01, 2008 at 11:45 AM