This is not a left-right issue. It is about whether the Alaska Highway Patrol should be able to write guidelines for who is dismissed and who is not, rather than relying on the Governor's office. I am pretty sure that in every state, the state HP has specific guidelines as to what infraction will be dealt with in which manner. I don't think that the governor of any state typically has the responsibility to hire and fire state civil service employees. I assume that Alaska is not officially set up to follow a spoils system such as Huey Long used in Louisiana back in the 1930's.
A second issue is whether the fact that this officer is related to the governor should mean that he would be given worse treatment than any other officer. I think most people would agree that it should not influence the decision to keep him on the job or not.
A third issue is whether Palin's husband in some way should be allowed to advocate more for firing the cop and the supervisor than any other Alaskan. I don;t see why he should be given special attention, as this would be nepotism.
The actual event that triggered this investigation is whether Palin's firing of the supervisor that refused to fire the officer was valid. If it was based only on the refusal to fire the officer, then Palin clearly overstepped her bounds.
What is needed is an investigation. To be done correctly, Palin and her husband should testify. This matter was pending prior to McCain choosing her for VP nominee, so she should not be given any special treatment because of the nomination. After all, she has ceased to work as hard in the job she was elected to because of her ambition.
