I will jettison this if a post appears on the main page, but since I am interested to hear opinions on her resignation, I go for it...
If you read the comment threads of various local sites, you'll see the full panoply of Palin Derangement Syndrome. This one is fairly typical--a somewhat bizarre piece by Lance Dickie of the Seattle Times, who speculates that the "law doggies" were closing in, or that she desired a big payday after experiencing the "luxe lifestyle" of the 2008 campaign.
Everybody has a theory. Her friends attribute the best possible motives, and her enemies, the worst.
The 'payday theory' seems patently dumb. She would have been far ahead in that game by staying in office. She could have doled out a year's worth of favors, to be cashed in by Palin & Associates, lobbyists, after Nov. 2010, a la Tom Daschle. She could have hinted at a possible run for president and watched her book fly off the shelves, a la Colin Powell. Or she could have racked up over $100 million in speaking fees, a la Bill Clinton. Or all three. Whatever the choice, staying in office would have only postponed the income for about a year, and would have maximized her potential earning power.
I tend to think that either a) she just got fed up with it all, and will fade into obscurity after doing her book; or b) she plans to run for president in 2012, and wants to spend full time studying the issues, lest she repeat her disastrous interview with Katie Couric. Of the two, I lean towards the latter. If she intends to run for U.S. Senate, as some guess, I don't see what she gains by resigning.
The one thing I do know is that I don't know what her motive is. Those who talk as if they know, only expose themselves as bloviators.
What do you think is behind the resignation of Sarah Palin?
Posted by 6p01053690976c970c at July 06, 2009 03:39 AM | Email ThisMy answer: I don't know; probably more to do with family and what could she accomplish as governor versus as non-governor.
Posted by: swatter on July 6, 2009 01:27 PMa) She is a complete and utter nutjob.
b) After the Vanity Fair article she was given an ultimatum by members of the McCain 2008 campaign team to get out or be further and completely exposed for the incompetent twit she is.
IMHO, good riddance to bad rubbish.
She is a lightning rod without any real baggage, unlike the Thinker, Newt, who has lots of ideas but no one listening.
When she speaks, people write about it. How about just speaking up and getting the truth to see the light of day?
The Democrats and Obama are just killing America and everything good. Isn't it a good idea to have a spokesman?
For president? I am noncommittal and haven't begun to think about her potential as anything more than mentioned above.
Posted by: swatter on July 9, 2009 08:34 AMThe budgetary provisions of the law provide full time staff to investigate and disposition the filings... so the staff gets paid no matter what.
Regarding taking Palin at her word, Andrew Sullivan has a fairly succinct and sourced list of why you may want to be careful there.
No one can read the mind of Sarah Palin than maybe her husband and possibly close friends. Until there is hard evidence to the contrary, however, the only thing one can do is take her most recent statements and think that this is what she believes. No as to whether it is a good enough reason for quitting, I will let you decide. For me, it tells me she isn't ready for prime-time. If she can't stand the heat of a few lawsuits, how does she expect to stand any public focus, whether it be in the pundit circuit or running for another office.
Posted by: tc on July 9, 2009 01:10 PMWith the story now a week old, it is looking to me like that is the main explanation. It may not be the perfect option to resign. But if she has confidence in her replacement, and did not want to blow another $million on the frivolous complaints, I think the resignation option is understandable.
I don't know whether this was due to a law that she signed, but if so it wouldn't be the first time. It was little-reported at the time, but the investigation into Bill and Monica was made possible by the 'Molinari Amendment,' which Bill Clinton signed into law. It permitted wide-ranging investigation into the sex lives of those accused of sexual harrassment. This according to The Unwanted Gaze a book by law prof. Jeffrey Rosen.
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 11, 2009 04:47 AMThe July 6th Time magazine article merely repeated the assertions of Palin.
Palin's assertions are disputed by facts which have since been uncovered. I would recommend to you and others who wish to better understand the costs to Alaskans and Palin this well researched and more recent than July 6th post:
The 2 million dollar meme
I would specifically like to draw your attention to the pie chart the author has put together which shows that the largest expenditure was for "Trooper Gate" - an ethics charge brought by none other than Palin herself, of which she was found in violation and which accounts for 63% of the cost to Alaskans for investigation of unethical conduct on the part of the Palin administration.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 11, 2009 10:03 AMA $30,000 an hour attorney? Palin report overstates inquiries' costs!
Frankly, the more one peels the Palin onion, the more it stinks.
The Time numbers and the numbers from your two links are two different things.--your links cover the cost to Alaska to investigate the complaints. Different subject.
By the way your two links wildly differ. The McClatchy piece says that a $1.9 million figure appears off by $26,849, and the anti-Palin blogger says off by over $1.6 million.
Either you are very confused or just trying to confuse others.
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on July 11, 2009 02:54 PMYou're lying again... Palin was exonerated for Troopergate - no wrongdoing found.
If you don't like her, just say so. Inventing lies to support your position leaves you with no credibility.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 11, 2009 04:27 PM