Republican state legislators, at the behest of the McCain campaign, have now filed an emergency appeal with the Alaska Supreme Court trying to shutdown the ‘Troopergate’ investigation. The plaintiffs (echoing the Bush v. Gore decision) claim “the plaintiffs and Alaskans will suffer irreparable harm” if the Branchflower report is released, as scheduled, next Friday, October 10th.

Bear in mind, the people in charge of the investigation moved the release date up so as not to have it released on the eve of the election. That was the original schedule long before Palin was chosen as veep nominee. And the GOP lawyers the McCain campaign sent to Alaska have succeeded in having almost all the parties connected to Palin refuse to cooperate with the investigation. So it’s not completely clear just what Branchflower is going to be able to come up with, either inculpating or exculpating.

But this is an opportunity to refocus our attention on something that has been lost in the nonstop coverage of Palin’s campaign trail lies and botched interviews: her record in Alaska strongly suggests she lacks the character to be trusted with high office. Though the troopergate scandal is tied narrowly to Palin’s firing of Alaska’s top cop, Walt Monegan, the heart of the story is about a private vendetta that Palin tried to settle using her new powers as the chief executive of the state of Alaska. Thwarted in doing so, all evidence suggests she fired the public official who refused to execute her plan.

Nor is it the only example. Both as mayor and governor, Palin has shown the tell-tale signs of a politician who hires cronies and fires or blackballs critics. This part of Palin’s record gets deep in the weeds. So it’s not as flashy as the boffo interviews or and irresistible as the straight-up lies she’s been caught in. But we need no closer example than the Bush administration to know that people like this are dangerous and corrosive to our public institutions.

Gov. Palin’s going to be making a campaign stop in Omaha?

Sarah Palin is accusing Barack Obama of “palling around with terrorists.” But isn’t her husband a former member of a political party which has treason against the United States as its central tenet?

Answer: yes.

She fibbed about Darfur too. She supported divestment about as much as she killed the Bridge to Nowhere.

From WaPo …

Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations, several top Republicans said.

With just a month to go until Election Day, McCain’s team has decided that its emphasis on the senator’s biography as a war hero, experienced lawmaker and straight-talking maverick is insufficient to close a growing gap with Obama. The Arizonan’s campaign is also eager to move the conversation away from the economy, an issue that strongly favors Obama and has helped him to a lead in many recent polls.

“We’re going to get a little tougher,” a senior Republican operative said, indicating that a fresh batch of television ads is coming. “We’ve got to question this guy’s associations. Very soon. There’s no question that we have to change the subject here,” said the operative, who was not authorized to discuss strategy and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Rolling Stone takes a look at Mr. McCain.

John McCain’s campaign surrogate and brother Joe McCain this weekend called Northern Virginia “communist country.”

Apparently on orders from the campaign, he later apologized.

John McCain being interviewed by Mother Jones magazine in the Nov/Dec 1998 issue (emphasis added) …

MJ: You not only have had combat experience in Vietnam, but you were also a prisoner of war. When you look at terrorism right now, with people like Osama bin Laden, do you have any reservations about watching strikes like that?

John McCain: You could say, Look, is this guy, Laden, really the bad guy that’s depicted? Most of us have never heard of him before. And where there is a parallel with Vietnam is: What’s plan B? What do we do next? We sent our troops into Vietnam to protect the bases. Lyndon Johnson said, Only to protect the bases. Next thing you know…. Well, we’ve declared to the terrorists that we’re going to strike them wherever they live. That’s fine. But what’s next? That’s where there might be some comparison.

(ed.note: Special thanks to TPM Reader SM for the tip.)

Trying to figure out whether it’ll be John “Wallace” McCain this week or John “McCarthy” McCain. Maybe 50% – 50%?