Missing the Point on Troopergate… Entirely

It is somewhat disappointing to observe the varied responses to what is now being known as “Troopergate” regarding presumptive Republican Vice Presidential nominee and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Questions abound in the media seeking to address Palin’s involvement. Did she lie about it? Was there a cover-up? An investigation at the state level is underway and I’m confident answers will be provided in due time. All of this, however, seems to miss a much larger issue: what was the Alaskan Governor’s office doing getting involved in the human resources decisions and personnel management of one state trooper barracks in the first place?

Let us assume for the moment that Michael Wooten was (and apparently remains) one of the worst state troopers in history – that he Tasered a family member, got drunk on duty and killed a moose without a permit, among other charges. Let us further assume that Walter Monegan is a bad actor with an axe to grind, either against the Governor, her family, or other agents unknown. Was there no person in the entire chain of command of the Alaskan State Police who could handle this matter appropriately? How did the Governor’s staff become involved in a matter which – in other circumstances – would never have found ink outside the local police blotter and trivia page in the Anchorage newspaper’s community section?

When placed in context with the news that Palin had pursued action against Wooten before ascending to the Governorship, the answer seems clear. This is looking uncomfortably like a vendetta. An initial investigation against Wooten was conducted and punishment – fitting or not – was meted out. Palin did not find the initial judgment satisfactory and, upon reaching the Governor’s office, decided to use the considerable powers of her new and much larger bully-pulpit to obtain a resolution more to her liking.

One would think that the era of Woodward and Bernstein had ushered in the end of executives in high office maintaining and acting on “lists of enemies.” (Even if said list is composed of only one name, and that being an in-law.) One difficulty in obtaining high office is the need to distance yourself from personal concerns… to treat every individual equally under the law and maintain an impartial stance while delivering fair, equal treatment to all of your constituents. Who among us, if given such a lofty seat of power, wouldn’t feel the temptation to right old wrongs against our previous tormentors? But it is exactly that temptation which such executives must resist, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety if they wish to maintain the trust and confidence of those who place them in office.

So we are left with three big questions:

Is this a fair issue for us to consider?

Should the McCain team have taken this into consideration when vetting Palin as his running mate?

Should voters likewise take this into account if Palin is to be the VP nominee?

Given the above analysis, at least viewing it through the wide lens, I would have to say yes to all three. I understand that many readers will feel, particularly given recent kerfuffles here, that I have some sort of axe to grind against Palin. I do not. Nor do I bear any malice toward John McCain. But this is highly-questionable behavior and, in my opinion only, casts doubt on the qualifications of this candidate and the wisdom in selecting her to potentially be the next Commander-in-Chief on a moment’s notice.

EARLY UPDATE: While the linked author and I rarely agree on many political issues, Josh Marshall seems to have hit on very nearly the same point, at least in the broad sense.