The Palin Dilemma

The investigation into Alaska governor Sarah Palin's firing of Alaska's public safety commissioner ended with a report released on Friday. (Read complete public report here)

While the news media will summarize, criticize, defend and interpret to its heart's content, it is most revealing to read the report.

First, after all the investigation, regardless of motive, Governor Palin did not break the law by firing the commissioner, since the Alaska governor can fire without cause. Any criminal charges that are brought, or attempted to be brought, would most likely be politically motivated, and really should be ignored.

However, the ethical behavior is a different story.

While I would be willing to accept the governor asking that the handling of her ex-brother-in-law's misconduct be reviewed, it is obvious that the matter would not rest until the outcome changed to her satisfaction.

Todd Palin seems to play a large, influential role in the governor's administration, in spite of not being a state employee. At the very least, the governor's spouse working directly out of the governor's office is highly irregular. Add to that his access to state documents and employees, it all seems to be a little shady, as my grandfather used to say.

So here are the dilemmas I see:

For the Alaska state legislature, if and when to pursue ethics charges. If they pursue it before the election, the hue and cry of partisanship will continue. If they wait until after the election, there is the possibility that she will leave office before they have a chance to bring charges, if she is elected with John McCain. If they take no action, they give the signal that the specific law overseeing the governor's ethical choices has no teeth.

For the McCain campaign, how do they continue to spin this, other than the rather weak charge that it is a partisan effort to discredit her? Do they allow her to continue as John McCain's running mate? If they don't, do they run the risk of angering the social conservatives? Can they really continue to tout her as a maverick and a reformer, when one of her first acts in office was to use her authority to try to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from his job?

For Sarah Palin, how does a woman who is a social conservative, and a Christian, who brags about her reforming maverick approach to politics, explain why she violated the state law in pursuit of a personal vendetta? This is, what we used to talk about in Bible College, situational ethics, which are at odds with her fundamentalism.

And, last, the dilemma for voters: Can we really trust her to be ethical in the office of vice president if she was unethical as governor and refuses to accept responsibility for what it is?

Sarah Palin does, I think, represent middle America to an extent. But the middle class, no matter what country, what culture, has historically held onto a high moral code more than the lower and upper classes. Abiding by the spirit of the law, not just the word of the law, is important to them. She had better hope that they don't notice that she broke her own state law about the governor's conduct.

Her brother-in-law probably is a jerk and deserves to be rotting in a hole somewhere after the way he treated her sister. But two wrongs don't make a right, missy, especially when you refuse to acknowledge that you are doing something wrong to right the other wrong.