I think the fact that she did not have the depth and breadth of national issues that some thought she should to be VP is the very reason she is resigning as Alaska's Governor. I may be wrong, but I see her thinking she can be a good choice as a VP candidate in 12 if she develops a better knowledge of national issues between now and then. Face it, if she remained as Governor, she wouldn't either have the time to develop a strong knowledge about national issues or if she did devote the time, she would be neglecting her gubernatorial duties. Either way she went, she was going to be criticized.

 

No doubt that she will be criticized for "abandoning" the Alaskan people, if my guess as to her plans is correct.

 

I agree to an extent. If she is still planning to seek the Republican nomination she'll definitely need to study and this would certainly give her more time to do so. Yet, 1) her term ends next year, so she's making a risky, risky move for only a year of free time, and 2) I've yet to see much evidence that would suggest she's willing to listen to others' advice - she seems to believe she has everything figured out. Take this speech for instance. It was clearly written by her and it was absolutely terrible. No one advising national candidates would let that be read publicly. And why did she choose the day before a national holiday, particularly when she wasn't announcing she was resigning in shame due to some investigation or misconduct?

 

Furthermore, if we accept her stated reasons then her move is more nonsensical. She's upset about the exposure to her family. Yet, she ran for governor, accepted a vice-presidential nomination, and incorporated her family into those campaigns. And what further scrutiny would her family see for one more year in office? This is even more bogus if she remains in the national spotlight. She doesn't want to "milk" a paycheck like others do. Then don't "milk" a paycheck like others do. When will we expect to accept her resignation if she were to win the White House? She said frivolous ethics investigations were costing the state money. However, of the three big investigations I've seen, they've all seemed legitimate and brought on by herself.

 

Finally, if she truly is seeking national office, this ridiculous decision is enough to sink her campaign. The logic doesn't add up anywhere.

I think the fact that she did not have the depth and breadth of national issues that some thought she should to be VP is the very reason she is resigning as Alaska's Governor. I may be wrong, but I see her thinking she can be a good choice as a VP candidate in 12 if she develops a better knowledge of national issues between now and then. Face it, if she remained as Governor, she wouldn't either have the time to develop a strong knowledge about national issues or if she did devote the time, she would be neglecting her gubernatorial duties. Either way she went, she was going to be criticized.

 

No doubt that she will be criticized for "abandoning" the Alaskan people, if my guess as to her plans is correct.

 

We'll see if Palin has an political savvy if she again runs for the VP or Pres. office. On paper, she was a much better choice than she became as a live candidate. There was a big segment of the American people that were very upset with the existing "DC insider VP" and bringing in someone fresh and more Main Street on paper looked smart. Unfortunately, I don't think that McCain fully understood the level of concern in America with his age and health, which turned that outsider, Main Street appeal from an asset to a liability. There is probably no one on this site that knows why she took the positions and tones that she did on the campaign trail. Perhaps it was all her call and her natural persona; then again, perhaps she was told by the McCain people that she needed to be the far right attack dog to appeal to the far right Republicans that McCain turned off. If the latter, it may have helped with the Rush segment of the party, but turned off the group that McCain had been attracting: the moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats and Independents and in my opinion, cost McCain the race. So I'm not sure if it was the choice of Palin that was lethal, but rather could have been the strategy developed for her.

 

And for those that like to cite the McCain staffers that have criticized her since the election, please, please tell me that you are smart enough to at least logically wonder if those critics aren't trying to find some scape goat for their own strategic failures. Political staffers and advisors are some of the most egotistical people that I have ever dealt with in my adult life (and I'm a lawyer for Pete's sake that spends a lot of time dealing with other lawyers, so that should tell you something). I've yet to run across a "professional" political advisor that after his/her client lost was willing to publicly admit that he/she gave bad political advise that cost the election. Their egos are too big and besides, it's not good for attracting future business.

 

I think your last paragraph, particularly, is spot on. Advisors/staffers have jobs that are based on how well their politician does, so if he/she fails, they have to blame someone else to keep afloat.

I think your last paragraph, particularly, is spot on. Advisors/staffers have jobs that are based on how well their politician does, so if he/she fails, they have to blame someone else to keep afloat.

 

This is true and I share LN's skepticism of those anonymous critics. However, Steve Schmidt has been on the record arguing with Bill Kristol about Palin and the campaign's handling of her. If you follow that, there is a lot of anonymous smearing going on meant to defend Palin and blame the whole fiasco on Schmidt. From his responses, those criticisms don't hold up, and I am the first to criticize Steve Schmidt.

LN - NYT v Sullivan says that in the case of a public figure an additional element must be proved. Did the person act with "actual malice?" Did the person making the statement KNOW that it was false when making it?

 

IMO that's why this trumped up charge by her and her attorney will not make it to court.

 

I am well aware of the law on this issue. I don't believe I ever disagreed with you in re the malice requirement.

 

I do agree with you that Palin will have a hard time proving defamation unless malice can be shown.

 

And a "for what it's worth" comment, I've never understood the malice requirement for public figures. If you don't know something to be true, you shouldn't repeat it whether the person is a public figure or not. Becoming a public figure should not mean subjecting yourself to having lies told about you and permitting the author to get off the hook by requiring it to be proven that the author knew it was a lie when he/she uttered the lie.

I agree to an extent. If she is still planning to seek the Republican nomination she'll definitely need to study and this would certainly give her more time to do so. Yet, 1) her term ends next year, so she's making a risky, risky move for only a year of free time, and 2) I've yet to see much evidence that would suggest she's willing to listen to others' advice - she seems to believe she has everything figured out. Take this speech for instance. It was clearly written by her and it was absolutely terrible. No one advising national candidates would let that be read publicly. And why did she choose the day before a national holiday, particularly when she wasn't announcing she was resigning in shame due to some investigation or misconduct?

 

Furthermore, if we accept her stated reasons then her move is more nonsensical. She's upset about the exposure to her family. Yet, she ran for governor, accepted a vice-presidential nomination, and incorporated her family into those campaigns. And what further scrutiny would her family see for one more year in office? This is even more bogus if she remains in the national spotlight. She doesn't want to "milk" a paycheck like others do. Then don't "milk" a paycheck like others do. When will we expect to accept her resignation if she were to win the White House? She said frivolous ethics investigations were costing the state money. However, of the three big investigations I've seen, they've all seemed legitimate and brought on by herself.

 

Finally, if she truly is seeking national office, this ridiculous decision is enough to sink her campaign. The logic doesn't add up anywhere.

 

Do you know of anyone ever trying this strategy?

 

I think her ego might cost her here, but (and this is going to sound bad) she's not trying to appeal to people who follow politics in 2009. She's trying to be ready in 2011 for the 2012 election, and some of those voters are clueless. I think it might work somehow. She's at the very least going to make a lot more money IMO.

I agree to an extent. If she is still planning to seek the Republican nomination she'll definitely need to study and this would certainly give her more time to do so. Yet, 1) her term ends next year, so she's making a risky, risky move for only a year of free time, and 2) I've yet to see much evidence that would suggest she's willing to listen to others' advice - she seems to believe she has everything figured out. Take this speech for instance. It was clearly written by her and it was absolutely terrible. No one advising national candidates would let that be read publicly. And why did she choose the day before a national holiday, particularly when she wasn't announcing she was resigning in shame due to some investigation or misconduct?

 

Furthermore, if we accept her stated reasons then her move is more nonsensical. She's upset about the exposure to her family. Yet, she ran for governor, accepted a vice-presidential nomination, and incorporated her family into those campaigns. And what further scrutiny would her family see for one more year in office? This is even more bogus if she remains in the national spotlight. She doesn't want to "milk" a paycheck like others do. Then don't "milk" a paycheck like others do. When will we expect to accept her resignation if she were to win the White House? She said frivolous ethics investigations were costing the state money. However, of the three big investigations I've seen, they've all seemed legitimate and brought on by herself.

 

Finally, if she truly is seeking national office, this ridiculous decision is enough to sink her campaign. The logic doesn't add up anywhere.

 

Certainly from your political perspective it doesn't add up. But seriously, do you think that you ever would vote for her under anything other than the most ridiculous and extreme situations? My assessment of your posts in this forum would lead me to conclude the answer to that question is no. But voters in the middle may look at it differently than you do. Who knows, we may be able to see if that is true or we may not. I just have this feeling that Palin is not off the national stage and she may use the next three "free" years to be getting geared up.

She's at the very least going to make a lot more money IMO.

 

This, IMO, is the main reason. She can now charge to be a speaker at other candidates rallies, etc...Her family, while well off, is nowhere near the normal political family when it comes to financial security. She's trying to cash in while she can, and I can't blame her.

This, IMO, is the main reason. She can now charge to be a speaker at other candidates rallies, etc...Her family, while well off, is nowhere near the normal political family when it comes to financial security. She's trying to cash in while she can, and I can't blame her.

 

If $$ is the main reason as you say, she can certainly be taken to task for that.

Certainly from your political perspective it doesn't add up. But seriously, do you think that you ever would vote for her under anything other than the most ridiculous and extreme situations? My assessment of your posts in this forum would lead me to conclude the answer to that question is no.

 

I've made my biases clear in this thread. But, I've also outlined my reasoning for my conclusions. If it is specious or wrong then make that argument. If it's wrong it isn't just because I oppose her.

 

But voters in the middle may look at it differently than you do. Who knows, we may be able to see if that is true or we may not. I just have this feeling that Palin is not off the national stage and she may use the next three "free" years to be getting geared up.

 

How else can it be viewed, especially from the perspective of a voter?

If $$ is the main reason as you say, she can certainly be taken to task for that.

 

Not shocking, I disagree....:lol:

If $$ is the main reason as you say, she can certainly be taken to task for that.

 

 

Agreed. Abandoning your constituency for cash leaves a far worse taste than abandoning your constituency to address a family emergency.

 

I think that the term "public servant" became an oxymoron a long time ago.

I've made my biases clear in this thread. But, I've also outlined my reasoning for my conclusions. If it is specious or wrong then make that argument. If it's wrong it isn't just because I oppose her.

 

 

 

How else can it be viewed, especially from the perspective of a voter?

 

Your original post:

 

"I agree to an extent. If she is still planning to seek the Republican nomination she'll definitely need to study and this would certainly give her more time to do so. Yet, 1) her term ends next year, so she's making a risky, risky move for only a year of free time, and 2) I've yet to see much evidence that would suggest she's willing to listen to others' advice - she seems to believe she has everything figured out. Take this speech for instance. It was clearly written by her and it was absolutely terrible. No one advising national candidates would let that be read publicly. And why did she choose the day before a national holiday, particularly when she wasn't announcing she was resigning in shame due to some investigation or misconduct?

 

Furthermore, if we accept her stated reasons then her move is more nonsensical. She's upset about the exposure to her family. Yet, she ran for governor, accepted a vice-presidential nomination, and incorporated her family into those campaigns. And what further scrutiny would her family see for one more year in office? This is even more bogus if she remains in the national spotlight. She doesn't want to "milk" a paycheck like others do. Then don't "milk" a paycheck like others do. When will we expect to accept her resignation if she were to win the White House? She said frivolous ethics investigations were costing the state money. However, of the three big investigations I've seen, they've all seemed legitimate and brought on by herself.

 

Finally, if she truly is seeking national office, this ridiculous decision is enough to sink her campaign. The logic doesn't add up anywhere."

 

 

Another year learning about national issues could make a difference in her preparation for national office. You don't think so; a more moderate voter may think differently.

 

You've determined it to be a risky, risky move; a more moderate voter may think differently.

 

You've stated that you have yet to see much evidence that she is willing to listen to other's advise; a more moderate voter may determine that since the more moderate voter has not been involved in every decision that Palin has made nor been apprised of what advise that she has or has not listened to in making those decision, that your conclusion about her not being able to listen to other's advise is ill founded and summarily made.

 

You've made certain conclusions about her based on one speech. A more moderate voter may conclude that the speech wasn't as terrible as you claim it to be. You want to portray the speech as being a poor decision and against the advise of others because no advisor of national candidates would let her publicly read such speech. A more moderate voter might respect her for not being beholden to the political hacks that want to manipulate and guide every national candidates moves and decisions; the more moderate voter may, you know, think she acted like a real person; not a professional politician enamored with how her decisions supposedly make her look.

 

You've concluded that all of the ethics investigations all seem legitimate and were brought on by her own actions; a more moderate voter may not come to that same conclusion.

 

You implied in the wording of your statement that since she's resigning from the Governor's office, she would resign early if she gets elected to the White House. A more moderate voter might not come to the conclusion that just because she resigned one office early means that she will resign early if she gets elected to another office.

 

Are those enough examples where I think a more moderate voter might not agree with some of the same conclusions that your admitted bias has driven you to make or shall I go on?

Are those enough examples where I think a more moderate voter might not agree with some of the same conclusions that your admitted bias has driven you to make or shall I go on?

 

First, I think I am a fairly moderate voter. Admittedly, I don't like Sarah Palin - not an extreme position. I found my comments to be fair.

 

 

Another year learning about national issues could make a difference in her preparation for national office. You don't think so; a more moderate voter may think differently.

 

I didn't say it wouldn't make a difference. I said from a cost-benefit standpoint she's only gaining about a year's worth of free time (and she could have studied while also being governor) in exchange for the perplexing decision to leave office early. You can rest assured Republicans will assail her for this in the primaries as being irrational, incapable of handling the pressures of high office, letting her constituency down, etc. It's a gamble, at best.

 

You've determined it to be a risky, risky move; a more moderate voter may think differently.

 

And I would say that most moderate voters expect their elected officials to finish out their term. I think you would be hard pressed to find even conservative Republicans who do not think this is risky if her goal is to run for another office.

 

You've stated that you have yet to see much evidence that she is willing to listen to other's advise; a more moderate voter may determine that since the more moderate voter has not been involved in every decision that Palin has made nor been apprised of what advise that she has or has not listened to in making those decision, that your conclusion about her not being able to listen to other's advise is ill founded and summarily made.

 

This point has nothing to do with moderate voters perception of her, but is my assessment of her willingness to study the issues. She often contradicted the McCain campaign and was criticized for not taking seriously her preparation for the interviews or the debate. The test for this point will be whether she can appeal to Republicans with her knowledge of issues.

 

You've made certain conclusions about her based on one speech. A more moderate voter may conclude that the speech wasn't as terrible as you claim it to be. You want to portray the speech as being a poor decision and against the advise of others because no advisor of national candidates would let her publicly read such speech. A more moderate voter might respect her for not being beholden to the political hacks that want to manipulate and guide every national candidates moves and decisions; the more moderate voter may, you know, think she acted like a real person; not a professional politician enamored with how her decisions supposedly make her look.

 

If you want to argue that the speech was well written, cogent, and superbly delivered then do so, by all means. However, what I saw was a shaky Palin ramble for six minutes, leaving the reason for her unprecedented and surprising decision to speculation. Frankly, if there is an argument to be made for the need of professional hacks to advise candidates, it's Palin's speech here.

 

You've concluded that all of the ethics investigations all seem legitimate and were brought on by her own actions; a more moderate voter may not come to that same conclusion.

 

I didn't conclude that they were all legitimate - I'm not familiar with all of them. My point was that some of the more notable charges did seem worthy of investigation and questioned Palin's claim of frivolity. Even if true, I sincerely doubt she is the first governor to face ethics charges, but she will be the first innocent governor to resign over it.

 

You implied in the wording of your statement that since she's resigning from the Governor's office, she would resign early if she gets elected to the White House. A more moderate voter might not come to the conclusion that just because she resigned one office early means that she will resign early if she gets elected to another office.

 

If her reason for resigning included "milking" a paycheck from Alaska as she would be a lame duck, then it is a fair question to ask of her if she seeks another office. At which point will she consider herself a lame duck? Or will she backtrack and not consider herself to be "milking" a paycheck any longer?

Just another way of demonstrating her maverickiness.

 

If she resigned to waste her time on a presidential run I think that at least puts her above Obama, McCain, Clinton and all the other politicians who cheat their constituants while they pursue their own agenda.

 

You sure about this? She SAYS she doesn't want to be on the job supposedly representing Alaska whilst campaigning for a national position, right?

 

That doesn't seem like an odd statement?