In 2000 the town of Wasilla, Alaska had a population of about 5,500; and, according to the link provided by one of the posters to the FBI statistics for that town, one rape was reported that year. Awful as that rape was for the person who was assaulted, and if it is assumed that everyone in town was horrified / outraged by the crime, it is still safe to assume that it was not the top issue or problem confronted by city leaders that year; probably didn’t make the top ten list. This doesn’t make them insensitive or uncaring, it simply reflects reality. And before anyone jumps up to tell me I’m some sort of knuckle-dragging, no-neck type let me assure you I am indeed those things. I think a convicted rapist in most cases deserves, and should get, the death penalty.

What is instructive to me is that in the original article from 2000 neither Palin, as mayor, nor any of the city council members were interviewed, quoted or even referred to by name. It would seem only the police chief had anything to say that interested the reporter. This would make sense if the mayor and council, like those of most small towns, are part time officials who rely on the “expert” hired to run a department to formulate and submit a budget for their approval. Typically the budgets submitted are not a laundry list of every item required to run a department; i.e. every type of ammunition required to maintain firearms proficiency; many items are often lumped together under major headings like “training” or “operations”. So could it be possible that Palin and the council were unaware of the procedures used in investigating a reported rape? Is it possible that the victim of the rapist saw the cost to be tested as another indignity forced upon her that she didn’t want to talk about? Is it possible that a state legislator and governor of one party saw an opportunity to embarrass a person with a possible future in another party? (Strike that last. They wouldn’t do THAT.)

As to what Palin knew about the policy and when she knew it; we have little, make that zero, information. The original article doesn’t even go there and current reporting, after quoting the original, seems to be little more than gossip and speculation. Then there is the refrain; “She should have done something”. What? Was she a mayor, with a council she had to work with, or a queen who could wave a scepter and change things as she chose? And there was the fact that the state had just finished riding hell bent for leather to get a law on the books as the original article was published. It was a done deal at that point. No further action was required at the local level.

__________________
"You don't have to practice being miserable. Everything else we're gonna work on." - A wise Platoon Sgt.