See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On November 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm, Digshot said:

   You must not confuse Republicans for conservatives. Doing so got you 8 years of Reagan. Hopefully the Republicans will run a conservative in 2012.

   You don’t need to worry about me being confused. I’ve been saying George Bush isn’t a Republican for years, while much of the conservative movement enthusiastically supported Bush during his re-election. But George Bush was no more of a conservative in 2002 than he is today, a few months before he leaves office in disgrace. If anyone’s confused about the differences between Republicans and conservatives, it’s Republicans and conservatives.

   The conservative base would have followed George Bush through time and space forever and ever if he had just continued to win for himself and the brand. This man received ridiculous amounts of praise from conservatives for any number of his very un-conservative ideas. In the Republican party, you can literally propose or support anything as long as you win the election. The party as its organized isn’t about any single or slate of issues, it’s about winning, first and foremost. Republicans are conservatives and vice versa when things are going well, but when things aren’t, the divorce is over pretty quick. The party failed, not the ideology, right?

2. #102
   On November 29th, 2008 at 10:31 am, DBNinKY said:

   You’re the lawyer, so I’ll defer to you on this one, but in my state it is a firing offense for state employees (regardless of tenure or position) to violate KY’s Best Practices statute on e-mail.

   Oops! To finish:

   So there are penalties and ramifications in KY, and I presume in Alaska, for state employees who defraud the peoples’ trust by using government e-mail for personal business; however, I don’t know of any precedent for a state official using a private e-mail account to perform the perfunctory/house-keeping duties of making simple contacts and agenda announcements.

   Maybe I missed it, if so, it’s news to me.

3. #103
   On November 29th, 2008 at 1:32 pm, chapoutier said:

   perfunctory/house-keeping duties of making simple contacts and agenda announcements.

   Have you seen the headers to those messages? They do not fall under “perfunctory” “simple contacts” or “agenda anouncements.”

   Don’t be obtuse.

4. #104
   On November 30th, 2008 at 2:53 am, PKAmmoTroop said:

   On November 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm, Digshot said:

   The conservative base would have followed George Bush through time and space forever and ever if he had just continued to win for himself and the brand.

   Wrong, the conservative base only followed him because he was running against a couple of complete morons. If he goes down in history as anything, it’ll be as the man who saved the USA from the brain trust of Al Gore and John Kerry.

5. #105
   On November 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am, DBNinKY said:

   Have you seen the headers to those messages?
   Don’t be obtuse.

   It’s not being obtuse to give Governor Palin the benefit of a doubt. You know how misleading e-headers can be, whether spam or from a close friend, so I think it’s presumptive to judge by that standard alone. But even if the messages are as they may appear, what of it?

   I see far greater abuse in a politician using state e-mail for personal matters than I do in his/her use of their private e-account for semi-official communication.

6. #106
   On November 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am, chapoutier said:

   And you are still willing to give her he benefit of doubt even though you know she researched whether such private accounts were subject to subpoena?

   Wow.

   And you really see more abuse in someone using a work email account for private purposes, which while probably not a good idea, seems to have as it’s worst consequence some mispproproated bandwidth, than you do in government officials skirting foia laws and this undermining transparency and accountability?

   All right. I guess this is pointless.

7. #107
   On November 30th, 2008 at 10:16 am, DBNinKY said:

   “…government officials…undermining transparency and accountability?”

   And sending personal e-mails on the tax payers’ dime – a form of public fraud – doesn’t undermine transparency and accountability?

8. #108
   On November 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am, chapoutier said:

   I admit it is fraud, though very minor. What % of people have occasionally sent a private email on their work account? I’d wager well over 50. But I don’t see how it undermines transparancy. You have all of the email you should have and some you should not I don’t care about the latter. I care very much about the former.

9. #109
   On December 1st, 2008 at 10:17 am, DBNinKY said:

   But I don’t see how it undermines transparancy.

   It shows a level or penchant for less than open/honest behavior in the workplace on the part of a perpetrating employee. Most state government’s ask employees to sign a contract agreeing not to abuse the public’s trust by taking advantage of tax payer funded services or supplies. In short, besides fraud, it’s about trustworthiness.

   I think if an employee is discovered breaking this contract on something that I agree is minor, sending or answering e-mail, then that employee may be less than transparent on other work-related issues or areas.