Of course, the thought of her sitting across the table from Vlad Putin or another international adversary instead of Katie Kouric and having to respond to him without coaching or rehearsed talking points, with the balance of international power in play, scares the hell out of me, as it does most people paying attention.

But I digress. Given her non-disaster at the debate, I think she may be entitled to another pageant award, even though she never got to play her flute or put on a bathing suit this time. The charm was still there, if not the unrehearsed competence and knowledge, and isn’t charm what really matters in a national leader?

First, what is being quoted is the report of the “investigator” — which was released by the committee — and has not been ratified, voted on or otherwise acted on by either the committee or any other branch of Alaska state government. The Attorney General specifically has counseled all to be very careful about reading anything into it or drawing any conclusions. But, on to the subject matter itself:

A) Todd Palin (who was apparently the most concerned about this trooper still being on the job) came to the defense of his extended family, and others. I wouldn’t apologize for that and I don’t expect he will.

The gentleman who was offered a transfer (for insubordination totally unrelated to any trooper issue) and chose to resign, was never instructed or asked to fire anybody by the Governor, according to him, quoted today.

There has been speculation that the Governor, because the Governor by definition has influence due to the nature of the position, might have “abused” that influence to gain some personal advantage (normally, under Alaska law, assumed to be financial — the statute they cite is used in bribery cases or extortion cases — public officials trading influence for dollars). As the Governor’s attorney has pointed out, there is not evidence in this matter that even remotely approaches a covered situation.

And, note, as to the above admission by the department head himself that he was never asked to fire anybody, his replacement in the position also was never asked to fire anybody and the trooper remains employed today. What they did do was to try to get the public safety commissioner to act on the allegations against the trooper (a complaint case started before Palin became Governor) and remove a dangerous person from the employ of the state.

The report is the report of one investigator. That’s it. The investigator hired by the vehemently anti-Palin head of this witch hunt who is on record as promising an “October Surprise” to take Palin down (and was originally planning to release the “report” of his investigator — a threat he made, by the way, well before the report was even finished (anybody wonder how he knew how it might come out) — three days before the election so no one would have time to respond — a move blocked by the committee). It engages in rank speculation about motive and cause and effect that cannot possibly be substantiated. It is the rankest speculation.

But, there is more. Speaking of potential tangible “gain” to Governor Palin from all this.

The only thing Governor Palin (or Todd Palin) had to “gain” from the dismissal of a potentially dangerous state trooper from the state payroll, was the public good. He should have been dismissed and the only “injustice” remaining related to this incident is that he’s still working, with law enforcement authority, carrying a weapon and driving a state vehicle. I’ve worked with a lot of law enforcement officers at all levels, including federal and I can’t imagine this man still being in uniform. If something happens involving this trooper, with his record and the state’s notice of his behavior, the lawsuit against the State of Alaska for allowing him to remain on the job will be monstrous.

But all that you folks can tear up and scatter around the yard and amuse yourselves with. It can occupy many kittens for hours. Enjoy.

But, to the crux of this thing that’s been overlooked (not by the campaign but by a host of bloggers) relates to the dispute between the Governor and one of her appointees (by law) running a state agency. The fellow to whom she offered a transfer who whose, instead, to resign.

The entire incident, once you get past the conjured up “troopergate” tabloid story, shows the Governor in only the best possible light. I would talk about it all the time, as perhaps they will. If you think Governor Palin is going to run from this, you just don’t know her at all.

The guy was transferred for insubordination but, more specifically (as I understand it), for refusing to cut his budget.

That was one of the Governor’s driving missions in office, to cut spending and streamline state government. Having to fire a department head because he refused to reduce spending in his department says nothing but good things about the Governor. Position I’d recommend, if she cared what I thought about it: I did it and I’d do it again tomorrow.

Side Note: The “report” suggested that family issues with the trooper in question might have had something to do with the transfer/resignation of the department head. Now, aside from the speculation, which has no place in a “finding” of any fact-finding enterprise [imagine a jury coming back with a verdict of, "Well, they might have done something but they didn't do what you said they did and, anyway, we're not sure what it might have been, or whether they did it at all but they probably maybe did, but it wasn't anything they couldn't do anyway and that's all we have to say about it"]. Aside from the fact “probably maybe” should never be included in such a report, the “personal interest” issue can be turned around. The insubordination that the department head demonstrated, which eventually led to his transfer/resignation, indicates he had a bone to pick with the Governor. Might his own personal animosity have led him to resist replacing a state employee despite that employee’s clear record of misconduct? If he’d gotten rid of this trooper when he should have, there would have been no “issue” in the first place. Whether or not there is a real issue even now is highly suspect.

But, bottom line and regardless of that peripheral issue: The Governor removed him because he wouldn’t reduce spending. I say Bravo!!!

A disclaimer. I was once a state department head, appointed directly by the Governor. We had a budget cut-back and all department heads got a memo telling us to submit revised annual budgets showing a 5% overall reduction, to come from wherever we chose. It was not easy. The largest expense is salary and fringes so you’re facing firing somebody. But, I did it. The Governor was my “boss” in all ways, and department heads always serve “at the will of the Governor.” That’s the way it is and everyone understands that.

If I had called the Governor and said I wasn’t going to do it, I would not have lasted through the day, much less been offered a transfer. The Executive Department is the Governor’s team. No questions asked. In fact, on a change in administration, the first thing all department heads wait to hear is whether or not they’re going to be kept on. In some states, everyone submits a resignation letter by protocol so the Governor can simply accept those he or she is changing and keep the others if they so choose (there are some very specialized positions that are considered to be “non political” in nature — but the head of the state police and the head of the state NGuard unit(s), for example, certainly are not in that category). The Governor is expected to put their own people in place and they do, with rare exception.

In summary, there is no “there” there.

So, for those who care, there it is. For those who don’t, I don’t.