Posted on 09/26/2011 10:05:11 AM PDT by el_texicano
One of the constant smears leveled at Sarah Palin is that she “quit” her office as Governor of Alaska. The word “quit” is used in the form of a smear, in order to paint her as less-than-committed, but the truth of the matter is that in resigning her post, what she actually did was a magnificently honorable act, rarely done in politics. How many times have you wondered if Barack Obama shouldn’t simply do the honorable thing in the name of the country, and step aside? The problem is that would still leave you with President Joe Biden, so it would not offer much relief. More importantly, however, we must consider the nature of the alleged “quitting” and why Governor Palin left her office early. She wasn’t hounded from office, or anything of the sort, except that what tore at her was the fact that each day she remained, costs were being inflicted on the people of her state, counted in all the wasted dollars spent handling the various FOIA requests, and all the bottled-up legislative work that hung in the balance. Governor Palin could have stuck it out, but what would have been the cost to the State and the People of Alaska? We’ve had numerous politicians under fire for actual wrong-doing who wouldn’t resign, relying upon tax-payers to bear the costs of their defense.
In truth, it is the willingness of our current president to see your money wasted while trying to stave off investigations into his conduct and the conduct of his administration in a number of issues that permits him the luxury of avoiding the “quitter” label. Visitors logs? Fast and Furious? Solyndra? The list goes on and on, but measuring his character, we now know he will never yield the office, no matter how badly he’s run it, and no matter how much it costs the people of America to sustain him in it. Even as some members of his party now murmur that he should indeed “quit” in the interests of his own party by refusing his renomination, Obama stubbornly rejects such suggestions on the basis that his personal claim to official power supersedes the interests of his party, the tax-payers, the voters, and frankly anybody else who gets in his way.
Contrast this with the facts of Governor Palin’s resignation. She had already said, some years before, that she would rather quit the office than ever let the people of Alaska suffer needlessly for her sake. Many politicians make such oaths, but few ever live up to them. After her Vice Presidential run in 2008, she returned home to Alaska to find that the war against her from the national stage had been moved to a field of battle in Alaska. The war against her raged on, with a single purpose: Her adversaries had seen her powerful potential on the national stage, and this was a preemptive strike against her, with the ultimate purpose of the attack being to destroy her, that she could never return to do battle against the machine in Washington DC. If the people and the state of Alaska needed to be ruined in the process, they considered it as mere collateral damage in a necessary campaign.
All of it was politically motivated, and it was hampering the function of the state. Alaska was losing millions, but worst of all, the harsh national politics had been imported into the state and this was obstructing the legislative agenda. The simple fact was that Sarah Palin had become the focus and object of the debate. This was a war to destroy her, and if it meant sinking the state of Alaska with her, the political forces from outside the state were happy to oblige. Realizing that the attacks upon her were causing the state to bleed money and that her legislative agenda was being obstructed for the sake of national politics, Palin decided to step aside and remove herself from the equation. No longer would Alaska be attacked for the sake of the war on Sarah Palin. What Palin did in resigning was to isolate herself from the state so that its business could go on under the leadership of her successor, Lt. Governor Parnell. As a result, the people of Alaska would no longer be made to suffer as proxies in the battle to destroy her. Rather than hunker down and weather the storm as most politicians will try to do, she did the most shocking thing and met their immediate demands. As she has written:
“The reaction to my announcement was instructive. The same people who had wanted nothing more than to throw me out of office were suddenly outraged that I was obliging.”
Some will insist on gaining the political advantage of using the term “quitter” for its negative connotations. This is to tell a lie, and further a smear, and while some are only too happy to do so, I believe in justice, so let me tell you what this really had been: Governor Palin possessed the strength of character to act in the best interest of her state and its people despite the costs to her own short-run political power. She must have known when she resigned her office that she would be called a “quitter.” She must have known how this would be used against her in any future political endeavor. What she did was to put her faith in the good sense of the American people to recognize the truth. She always believed in the values and wisdom of the American people to ultimately sort out what was real and what was merely another political falsehood.
In my favorite book, Atlas Shrugged, the protagonist is John Galt. His act of “quitting” and all those who followed him was portrayed by the villains as an act of abandonment and cowardice. One after the other, all the best and most virtuous people “quit” and disappeared, leaving behind all the trappings of fame and fortune for the sake of an idea, knowing that by the rules they had been fighting, they could never succeed or win. Instead, they “quit.” In so doing, they rescued the world, because without them, upon whom the villains had relied to keep the world going, evil was starved out of power. As they quit, they joined in an effort to undermine the broken, evil system from the outside in a way they could have never accomplished from within. In isolation, what they found is that their power had been magnified by their absence.
Is Governor Palin’s position now any different? The great shellacking of the left in 2010 was largely a result of the determined efforts of Sarah Palin and all those Tea Party patriots who answered her clarion call to clean up Washington by sending in new blood. The Tea Party responded magnificently, and they began in earnest the process of that critical reform. In this way, Sarah Palin has been a far more effective leader for the nation than she could have been in her office of Governor. What she must have discovered is what John Galt knew: In walking away, you will find liberation if you have the wisdom to make use of it.
At the end of the story, there comes a moment when the so-called “quitters” realize the way has been made clear, and they decide to return to the world at large. I can only imagine that Sarah Palin now looks to see if her way is now clear, and whether there is an opening through which she may now re-emerge. I believe that evidence has come in several forms, including the results of 2010′s elections, and the progression of this electoral season. At this moment, the Republican field is being shown to have few shining lights. Herman Cain’s ascension to the top of the Florida GOP straw poll is just the latest example. What all of this demonstrates is that the Emperors have no clothes. The people we’ve been told are the “front-runners” have been such only for the apparent lack of better choices. There is a vacuum into which others may attempt to leap, but in truth, we all know that there’s only one person who will satisfy this lacking, and it isn’t the governor of a very blue state.
Those who suggest Palin had “quit” understand little about her governing philosophy. She had always believed that no single personality is more important than the business of responsible governance. When she resigned her office, it was in recognition of this fact and obedience to her conscience on the matter. Most politicians will fight on because to hold power is the end-all, be-all of their existence. Their egos come before all else, and the narcissism implicit in their behavior drives their decision-making. It is always all about them. Governor Palin is not that kind of leader, and her resignation was the indisputable proof. She thought it better to stand aside, or as she put it, “to pass the ball.” You may be forgiven if you have bought the superficial narrative about “quitting,” but it’s time to accept the truth of this story: What she did, she did out of her firm commitment to Alaska and Alaskans.
Many Americans claim to want leaders who exhibits the strength of character to put the interests of the country before their own political careers. Governor Palin made precisely that choice, to her own political detriment, but to the immediate benefit of the people of her state. “Passing the ball” to Sean Parnell, the media circus and the political smear campaign followed her, leaving her successor to run with the ball unobstructed on behalf of the people of Alaska. Knowing this now lays the question upon your intellectual table: Did you mean it when you said you prefer your leaders to put the interests of the people ahead of their own, or was that mere posturing on your part? Politician after politician makes this sort of promise, but damnably few of them live it. What of you? When you lamented the state of politics and the general moral bankruptcy of so many politicians, did you mean it? Did you understand what you were asking of them? Having watched politics for so many tiresome years being played out with always the same essential ending, have you become too cynical to recognize that in the person of Sarah Palin, there had finally been a politician who had actually lived according to that premise which is for so many just more high-minded talk never to be followed by actions?
I long ago decided that Sarah Palin was anything but a “quitter.” I realized it was just one more example in a long string of smears, where virtues are twisted into vices. In much the same way that my favorite heroes in literature had their best and highest virtues turned upon them, so it is true of Sarah Palin. I recognize in her a politician who did not abandon her oath, but instead, in the most thoroughly rational and honorable way, she kept true faith and allegiance to it. What her example should actually teach us is how lacking in honest virtue our current leadership in Washington DC has been, as they fight to maintain their power without any concern for how it hampers the nation and its people. Instead, they cling to power like so many ticks to the hound, embedded and draining the lifeblood of the nation. As a group, they could exercise no greater virtue than to “quit,” but don’t expect that spectacle any time soon. The vice that is their compulsive grasping for power forbids it, and all the while, the nation suffers mightily at the hands of their intransigent incompetence. There is great virtue to be found in that rarest of politicians who puts the interests of the whole people ahead of her own, but for a change, and in justice to all our finest declarations about the virtues we wish to see in our leaders, we should recognize it and honor it. Sarah Palin isn’t a “quitter.”
She kept her word.
Okay, let's try the same sort of stuff on you......
If cows start to fly, can I interest you in a really, really big sheet metal umbrella?
If you are going to indulge in intuitive leaps, try to keep the distance to something less than light years. Sheesh.
Suppose it WAS in America's best interest? As the article points out, it would definitely be in America's best interest for Obama to resign. Is he a hero because he's not a "quitter?" Is he a hero because he puts his own interests above ours? I pray every day that he'll leave office and spare our country any further damage. He would never put the country's best interests above his personal ambition and ideology. Look where that's gotten us.
You didn’t say anything about her “being human.” You compared her to a pig. I take it you don’t like the comparison where it comes to yourself. That being the case, what does treating a human being like a human being have to do with worship? Unless maybe it would be invoking the Golden Rule. You know?
Silk purse/sow's ear is an old and time-honored addage.
I would thank you kindly not to twist what I post.
“I’m sorry, but you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”
Gee, that’s brilliant. Did you think that up all by yourself? Stick around, Noobie, maybe you’ll learn something.
Being you seem too ignorant to recognize a saying your grandmother employed, I'll leave you with the above explanation.
Be advised, I have to get to class now. I shall not be posting again for several hours (and I know you'll miss me.)
What, exactly, is a sow?
Your profile page states you are a oollege undergrad. See if you can figure out what is wrong with these three sentences:
“I see. Palin is above critisism.”
“The point is, she is a politician, and no politician is right every time on everything. By worshipping the ground she treads on and refusing to acknowledge that Palin is only human, like you and me, you guys are making a huge mistake...”
Usually, I wouldn’t say anything, but every, once in awhile, there is an exception, to the rule. A college undergrad? Really?
And you come bearing insults?
Interesting. You have denied an allegation that has not even been made. LMAO @ you.
Do it NOW. For help with PDS call 1-800-I NEED HELP.
You don’t need to continue to suffer from those itchy pus filled sores. You don’t need to check under your bed at night to see if a real conservative is there. There is help for this mental illness. Make the call NOW and change your life.
Good luck......
And look, you've got me posting in class now. SHAME on you.
ROFL!
BTW. Ain’t you glad this addiction ain’t heroin? Just don’t let the profs catch you here.
I ‘get’ that whoever writes under the pen name “Mark America” is with C4P and has a 100% pro-Palin perspective. However, this item would be more persuasive if he brought up that this was done not solely for the sake of the State of Alaska, but also for the sake of the Palin Family whose resources had been depleted to the tune of $500K or so as we were told at the time.
No pol should have to put his/her family in that kind of financial jeopardy, and people understand that. But to claim that the resignation was all for the benefit of the people of and the State of Alaska detracts from the argument. There was more to it and shouldn’t be glossed over.
In this case, as I’ve read here, the law that was so costly to Gov. Palin was her own doing. It was she who championed the law. It contained no provision to reimburse cleared elected officials, or to make those filing false charges liable, for the costs of prosecuting/defending. Amazingly, now that she’s out of office, the law has not been modified so far as I’ve read.
The principal of the school was the center of a great division in the congregation. I was aware of the problems but the general congregation was not. During one voters meeting at about the peak of the divide, someone stood up and demanded to know why such a wonderful man of God did not have support of the congregation, etc. Leadership couldn't say anything. The principal stood up and stated he was advised by the Synod not to comment.
At that moment he lost his leadership and integrity. Later I met with him and told that he had no integrity and leadership. he was surprised and asked why. This is what I told him:
At some point you decided to take a leadership role you agreed that the organization is more important than you are, especially in a church setting. When the issue came up during a voters meeting you said nothing except you couldn't comment.
It was at this very moment you lost your integrity and leadership. You are willing to allow the congregation to become divided in order to retain your job.
He asked me what he should have done. I told him he should have stood up and stated publicly that he would not allow a church division occur over him and then resigned effect at the end of the current semester. Had he done that I would have supported him and been his biggest cheerleader.
He did leave a year later. We talked again and I told him he was doing the right thing but at the wrong time. I did support him and he found another occupation. We became friends after this. He passed away 4 weeks ago.
I see no difference. Palin knew that he staying on would cause damage to the State of Alaska and when she was elected governor she agreed that the state took precedence over her. She acted on this and because of this she has exhibited tremendous leadership.
I have been involved in law enforcement for many years. I have worked for many different Chiefs and have been a Chief. I would follow Palin because I respect her. This very act has removed any doubt in my opinion of her ability to be President.
When she quit palin(™) did not give the legal issues as the reason or even a reason.
Nope, she said that, since she would not be running again, she was effectively a lame-duck. She went on to say...
"And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it".
Then...
"I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!"
And then she quit.
Well, where is it written that every "lame-duck" politician must do nothing but waste the taxpayers' money on junkets? It isn't - far many more "lame-duck" politicians work their damnedest to get their agenda accomplished before they turn over the keys.
And, when did eighteen months left in office qualify as "lame-duck"? - It doesn't.
And, using nothing but her own rationale and definition, why would we not expect palin(™) to quit with 18 months left of any future elected position?
Nope....her words are out there forever for you to ignore or acknowledge...you can do either but you can't change them.
And, while you ignore them (as we both know you will), you might want to ponder why, since she was going to quit, did she bother to first make a case for not running for a second term.
Heck, if you quit of course you're not going to run again.
You may find this act honorable, presidential and a stroke of genius but I sure do not and I'd wager that neither would the 68-70 million American voters that she would need to win the White house.
It was pretty clear to me that you were young and inexperienced, so there was no point in trying to argue.
Okay, chief, just for the record....
You’re not going to vote for Palin, so just who is it that you DO support?
(I’m not fond of BS either, so keep it to the point.)
Let’s look at the truth of your nonsense.
Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.
Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn’t been cheap
“the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction”
“It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.”
“You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!”
“it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: “Sit down and shut up”, but that’s the worthless, easy path; that’s a quitter’s way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.”
“So I choose, for my State and my family, more “freedom” to progress, all the way around… so that Alaska may progress… I will not seek re-election as Governor.”
Now let’s look at where you pulled your quote from to try to delude and dishonestly lead people who you thought were too stupid to know different.
And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? That’s not how I am wired.
Here’s how you tried to put it to make it look like something she didn’t do.
>>"I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!"
And then she quit.<<
In other words you lied. In the speech she had already announced that she was resigning and the reason for it long before she made that comment. Not only did you misquote but you excerpted to make it look like she said something she didn’t say.
Don’t try that crap with me and think you’re going to get by with it. You’ve been outed as having lied.
See his lies pointed out in post 58.
like other people, Palin resigned from office to run for president, or at least that will be clear when she announces. Not all do that of course, some instead keep their paycheck, others do not run for re-election and are unemployed a la Mitt, looking for a job.
she couldnt say in july 2009 she was resigning to run for president, obviously.
she resigned immediately rather than fill out her term because the peculiar Alasks ethics law was strangling the governor’s office, imperiling necessary state work, and not incidentally bankrupting her family.
had there been no legal lynching attempt, my speculation is she would have resigned a year later, in time to help with mid -terms. Sarah Palin spoke with Greta right after the 2008 election and made clear then she was very interested in running for president.
the resignation was a politically risky thing to do. Real conservatives can defend her on this issue. No DimBulbs will buy it and some Indies may not. But my question is why allegedly conservative freepers still want to string Palin up. The circumstances surrounding her resignation were quite unusual and justified her response. She resigned from an AK oil commission and went on to beat corrupt Republicans and win the governorship. Electability should play a concern in whom we nominate, but at this point anybody but David Duke will beat Zero.
I do not understand your obsession with this issue. I an a Palin supporter but I do not think Perry is texas toast because of his debate, at least i hope not. We need him if Palin doesnt run. I like Cain. Heck i have posted nice about Newt, the guy is smart but the Nancy Pelosi and dede fiascos in a guy this experienced really make me wonder about him
And it is probably true, had she not resigned, that some allegedly conservative freepers would disqualify her for president saying gross lack of judgment and egomania by letting her family go bankrupt and state affairs idle all so she could keep her job. Disgusting. Party hacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.