Why Is Palin Resigning?
Posted on July 3rd, 2009
by Daniel McCarthy |
|
From Todd Purdum’s Vanity Fair profile of Palin, a week or two back:
Surveying the landscape of political and policy troubles in Alaska, Gregg Erickson, an independent economic consultant in Juneau, concludes, “Everything she’s doing seems to be saying that there’ll be a problem in the future owing to her inattention, but she won’t be here to deal with it.”
Today, Palin announces that not only is she not going to run for re-election next year, she’s resigning as governor of Alaska later this month:
“Once I decided not to run for re-election, I also felt that to embrace the conventional Lame Duck status in this particular climate would just be another dose of politics as usual, something I campaigned against and will always oppose,” Palin said in a statement released by her office.
“It is my duty to always protect our great state. With that in mind, my family and I determined that it is best to make a difference this summer, and I am willing to change things, so that this administration, with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future, can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success,” she said.
Not running for re-election is a sensible move if she wants to run for president in 2012. Leaving office before she completes even one term, on the other hand, is not going to strengthen anyone’s confidence in her. Sounds like Gregg Erickson is on to something. (Or maybe Andrew Sullivan got to her.)
Update: Politico takes at face value the Palin camp’s claims that this is a way to save taxpayer dollars by curtailing ethics investigations of the Barracuda. Selfless pol steps aside for the greater good…
Filed under: Politics, Scandal
The MSM punditry has Palin resigning so she can pursue running for Pres full time. This makes no sense. Her term ends in 2010, which leaves lots of time to gear up a campaign. Resigning makes her look like a quitter.
Either there’s a bombshell on its way, or Ms Palin’s taste of big city lights has left her needing more attention than Alaska can provide. I don’t believe any of that postpartum speculation, but I do believe Palin has a pathological trait called narcissistic personality disorder. Way too much self esteem, no self doubt, and feeling like she’s be chosen by a larger power for special work.
Either way, there’s more entertainment in store.
Over at MSNBC, Howard Fineman says, “…Palin is running for president.”
He continues, “…Palin is no rocket scientist. Her knowledge of the issues and of the wider world remains shallow and incomplete. In some respects, her family life is a monument to confusion, if not hypocrisy, about Traditional Family Values. The cutesy-pie thing is fading fast, and isn’t the route (as Tina Fey proved) to Margaret Thatcher-hood. Her performance on the national campaign trail (after the first scripted moments in St. Paul) was, for the most part, not only laughable, but also cringe-worthy. She was in over her head.”
Hey, Daniel McCarthy, Trig is not your son, we presume. What about Fineman?
From the Huffington Post:
“We’re going with the rumor: Sarah Palin is not Trig’s mother.
A day after Sarah Palin made us believe we could grow up to be president if this comedy writing thing doesn’t pan out, we stumble across the greatest rumor since Hillary Clinton is a lesbian- Sarah’s 4 month old son, Trig, is actually her grandson. Trig’s real mom, suggests the internet underbelly, is Sarah’s teenage daughter, Bristol.”
Also from Huffington:
“Sarah Palin: A Trojan Moose Concealing Four More Years of George Bush
Did Sarah Palin wrongfully push to have her ex-brother-in law fired? Was she really against the “Bridge to Nowhere?” Did she really sell Alaska’s plane on eBay, or just list it on eBay? Did she actually have any substantial duties commanding the Alaska National Guard?
…The point is that Palin, and the circus she’s brought to town, are simply a bountiful collection of small lies deliberately designed to distract the country from one big truth: the havoc that George Bush and the Republican Party have wrought, and that John McCain is committed to continuing.”
@Daniel McCarthy - your buddies are legion.
MSNBC: Is “Criminal Investigation” Reason For Palin’s Resignation?
Interview with Huffington Post reporter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFdcSu4UyxI
This shows a lot of really good pictures of all 3 daughters, as well as listing a bunch of reasons to suspect that Sarah Palin is about to be arrested.
You go, Daniel, you’re on the winning side… for now.
Barney, you’re a nigh perfect illustration of what’s wrong with the GOP. How about you give us your take on Palin’s reasons for resigning — or do you think that a governor gives up office on a whim?
So you don’t like the GOP, and I seem like a perfect example of them.
Then can I ask you a question, as if the GOP was asking?
Why insult the kids, man? Didn’t there used to be some civility and decency? Didn’t the family used to be off limits?
That’s why you guys don’t have a clue what she’s doing. They have half a million in debt, from personal legal bills, defending against the Soros machine that is expending millions per week, to harm the family.
Hopefully, she will go on the speaker’s circuit, until the daughters are out of middle school, and their personal bills are paid. Maybe she’ll contribute to our country again.
Tell you what. We’ll trade you McCain for 10 day’s grace. Then Palin will tell us in her own words what is going on.
You asked for my best guess; that’s it.
Barney, where did I “insult the kids”? Quote my words.
“Why insult the kids, man? Didn’t there used to be some civility and decency? Didn’t the family used to be off limits?”
You mean like the mocking of Chelsea Clinton, Amy Lynn Carter, and both Johnson girls?
Don’t start what you can’t finish.
@Avery
“…mocking of Chelsea Clinton, Amy Lynn Carter, and both Johnson girls?”
*Anyone* who mocked any of these, as a political pundit, I consider a pervert.
“Don’t start what you can’t finish.”
Like trying to reason with a rabidly-partisan elitist? Good point.
===========================================
Sincerely meant compliments:
You want an example of decency? Philip Giraldi hates nearly all things republican, (and, it seems to some of us, most things conservative), but he never needed to denigrate (or “discuss” in a disparaging way), Palin’s children, or her pride in being a “mom”.
MattSwartz, on June 18th, 2009 at 8:33 pm Said:
“Might your personal distaste for her be a reflection of your political distaste for her, and if so, do you think that is healthy?”
(Sorry if I bring disfavor upon either of you, by approving your style.)
===========================================
@Daniel McCarthy
My intention started out to be, both to express my outrage at the trash being directed at Sarah Palin and her family, specifically, and more generally, the “snark” directed at the *majority* of the GOP/Republican/conservatives by the TAC Elite. (Which is, not to deny that there are a lot of “good” people at TAC, and a lot of good information and opinions from all sides.)
My efforts to highlight the absurdity of the sort of stuff being peddled by some, as Avery pointed out, was wasted.
You asked a question, and for a quote, so on the remote possibility that you were sincere, here is my reply:
Day “1″, McCarthy starts painting bull’s eye on children, in his very first reference to Palin (on TAC, that I know of…) - followed by a month of TAC’s anti-Palin nastiness
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/08/29/i-dont-think-it-will-be-palin/
Within a month, this by Clark Stooksbury - Not that we defend, just don’t object:
“I don’t defend moronic conspiracy theories about the birth of her son, but I’d like to see evidence that Palin is being subjected to anything outside the normal range of American attack politics.”
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/09/04/nose-face/
Sean Scallon - Describing where the NRC choose to spend it’s $150k:
“Baby clothes for out-of-wedlock child: $92″
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/10/23/for-everything-else-theres-the-rncs-credit-card/
TAC pushes nastiness about the children to the front of the line
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/09/04/youre-not-in-a-summer-place-anymore-sarah/
Typical TAC humor.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/10/12/conservative-principles-ctd/
…”I would like to take the opportunity to point out that not only has the Palin family’s inexplicable, obstinate refusal to publicly release the records of Trig Palin’s birth fed rumors that Governor Palin is not the child’s biological mother and constituted an affront to journalists asking similarly legitimate questions about Mrs. Palin’s basic fitness for the vice-presidency — an affront, indeed, to liberty — but also failed to quash the rumor I am hereby starting that Trig Palin’s real father is William Ayers.”
McCarthy - “After watching this, I think the McCain-Palin ticket is on course to disprove the old adage that no one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the American public. Even Homo boobiens has to be smarter than this…”
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/09/25/if-mccain-dies-shell-be-president/
Stooksbury -
*For those who have temporarily taken leave of their senses, allow me to explain: I am using a metaphor, an elitist literary thing that I learned in the seventh grade. I don’t really believe that McCain is a pig or that Palin is lipstick.”
“Until Sarah Palin hugs an ANWR caribou while a bird of peace alights on her shoulder, and embraces Barack Obama’s tax plan, I’m still going to hate her.”
===========================================
Was it “minutes”, or “hours”, after the election, that we saw you folks gushing about how much Michelle reminds you of Jackie O?
Stupid old neocon “litmus test”. Take *any* of the above TAC humor, and see if you’re comfortable applying it to any of Obama’s family (but keep it to yourself, of course, as decent people don’t want to hear it, even from a “Letterman”.)
Two scenarios come to mind: there are some personal (health and or family) reasons that the media just doesn’t want to consider (it might make her stepping down understandable under the circumstances to many Americans) … or she’s quitting the GOP (soon) and over the next two years wants to build a base (on personality more than issues) for an independent political machine - sort of George wallace populist for the 21st century. I hope it’s not the first, and although I relish the idea of a robust third party, I wouldn’t follow her platform more than two steps (drill for oil and, um, I’ll think of the other plank …)
“Daniel McCarthy, on July 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm Said:
Barney, where did I “insult the kids”? Quote my words.”
I did that, but you have deleted my last couple of posts.
Are you tired of this? (Imagine how Palin must feel.)
Or are you just cutting off those who disagree with you? (Imagine how Limbaugh is going to feel, if Obama, Powell, and TAC have their way.)
Barney: Your earlier comment wound up in the spam filter on account of its excessive length and number of links. I’ve retrieved it and posted it.
Contrary to your claim you do not, in fact, quote my words. You link to this post, http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/08/29/i-dont-think-it-will-be-palin/ , in which a.) I am not even criticizing Palin, let alone her children, and b.) the only mention of her offspring is in a quote from someone else who is advocating Palin as a good choice for McCain’s running mate. What in this post do you consider to be “painting a bull’s eye on children”?
I’m going to give you a second chance: quote my words. Show that anything I have said constitutes “insulting the kids” or “painting a bull’s eye on children.” If you cannot produce a quote from me to that effect, I will cease to post any more of your defamatory claims.
You posted my comments - fair enough, you’re a standup guy.
I linked to a VERY MINOR portion of the really nasty stuff that you were posting, and TAC was linking to, before the election, trying to seriously defame Palin and her family.
If you still don’t see it, you never will.
Now, if you’re going to try to do what Palin’s attorney wishes to do, and “silence the defamatory opposition”, then those who agree with you politically will agree with such a decision.
If you’re intellectually curious, call half a dozen “neocon” friends, who very much like Palin, and have them review my comments. If they are unanimous, and I make no sense whatsoever, then you’d be advised to remove my comments entirely.
Allow me to outline your argument, Barney: A.) all critics of Palin are liberals, B.) some liberals have insulted Palin’s children, C.) all liberals are the same, thus D.) anyone at TAC who criticizes Palin is a liberal and is insulting Palin’s children, even if you can’t cite a single word from anyone at TAC that speaks ill of her kids.
I never said you were a “perfect example” of the GOP, Barney. I said you were a nigh perfect example of what’s wrong with the GOP. Your reasoning, such as it is, proves my point.
“A.) all critics of Palin are liberals”
Patently false, not invented by me (I never said anything close to that)
“B.) some liberals have insulted Palin’s children”
This is true, and if I cite too many examples, your “spam filter” will delete my message (this happens numerous times), or changes my wording (this has happened to my comments to TAC numerous times), of if I do too much cut and paste…, etc, etc
“C.) all liberals are the same”
Patently false, not invented by me
“thus”… (insert exaggeration here)
This is a trick used by many liberals, but not all who use this trick are liberals, and not all liberals use this “trick of false logic”. It’s called a “non-sequitor”.
“D.) anyone at TAC who criticizes Palin is a liberal ”
“anyone at TAC who criticizes Palin… is insulting Palin’s children”
Patently false, not invented by me
“even if you can’t cite a single word from anyone at TAC that speaks ill of her kids”
How’s that experiment going, having some of Palin’s people examine the evidence…?
I said, “So you don’t like the GOP, and I seem like a perfect example of them.”
I inferred that (made an accusation that…), you don’t like the GOP. The GOP that you don’t like (which is a construct of my accusation, can also be interpreted to be an imaginary caracature developed by you of the real GOP, and therefore, given that I think you don’t like the GOP, and you claim I am a perfect example of the part of GOP you don’t like, then necessarily I am a perfect example of that “GOP caracature”).
You really need to take a class in logic or something.