Replies

She may or may not have had Governor Rick Perry in mind when she said this, but it is a fact that Perry--who never fails to brandish his humble beginnings as a rural farmer--has become very wealthy over the course of his 27 years in public office. He has had a series of questionable real estate deals with other politicians and with contributors that have netted him millions. His Horseshoe Bay deal, for example, involved State Senator Troy Fraser and two business partners (one who sold the land to Fraser; the other who bought it from Perry) and netted the Governor a cool $823,000 profit in 2007 on only a 300,000 investment in 2001. Then there was the deal in which Perry, while serving as state Agriculture Commissioner, bought 10 acres of undeveloped land in 1993 for $123,000 and sold it the next year to Michael Dell, a computer magnate for $465,000, three times what he paid for it. Interestingly, Michael Toomey, an influential lobbyist actually closed the sale for Perry (who was out of town at the time). Toomey later became Perry's Chief of Staff and, after that, became a lobbyist for Merck where he was instrumental in lobbying Perry to issue the gardasil mandate, which stood to make millions for Merck, while endangering the health of pre-teen Texas girls. And these are just a few of the scores of examples of such shenanigans, which the opposition researchers in the White House are poring over.

This is frankly an assinine argument. Do you know what Rick Perry's net work is? He's 61 years old, and has worked his entire adult life. He currently makes about $150,000 a year as Governor.

His Net Worth? In 2009, estimated to be about $1 million dollars. Yep. He sure profited from his public service. I fully plan to have a net worth of at least that much when I turn 61.

I think conservatives attacking people for having money is silly, for making money is silly, and especially when they have barely made it into the millionaires club.

And I can't believe a Sarah Palin supporter is going to try to make an argument about someone profiting from public service. The argument against Perry (made by his democratic opponent who was worth almost 3 times Perry) was that when Perry entered public service, his net worth was $13,000, and now it's over a million, so he "made all his money" off of public service.

But 27 years to net $1 million is nothing. It's what every american should strive for, in order to secure their own retirement.

Clearly, when Palin entered public service in 1994, the Palins didn't have any real money. But now she is worth 12 to 14 million dollars. That's 12-14 times richer than Rick Perry, who supposedly is the poster-child for making money off of public service.

Now, maybe you would argue that Sarah Palin would be a multi-millionare even if she hadn't been picked for VP by McCain, and turned that into a full-time profession of rallying people to conservative causes -- a profession that is worthy and necessary.

And Palin supporters have repeatedly argued for her resignation as Governor precisely because being governor was costing her money (Because of the frivolous ethics charges, and I agree it was best for her to resign), and so she could go out and make money off her popularity, which she did by writing two books and starring in her own TV series, and also being a political pundit on Fox News, and she even made money doing political speeches (although at least some times she donated that money, so I don't know if she ever really cleared anything there).

The point is that nobody is going to begrudge Sarah Palin her fame and fortune, even though it came from public service. But for people supporting a candidate whose net worth is over 10 million dollars to try to attack another candidate who managed to squeak together a million-dollar nest egg in 27 years of public service (well, more than 27 if we don't ignore that he served admirably in our country's military), is just silly.

Class warfare is a weapon of the left, and White tried it in the 2010 election -- the election where Palin supported Rick Perry, calling him a conservative we needed, and not once mentioning that she thought he was the epitome of "crony capitalism". But for supporters of a newly-minted multi-millionare candidate to attack a barely millionare candidate for "profiting from public service" is simply absurd.

For those of you who misread everything I write, I will again point out that NOTHING in this post is an attack on Sarah Palin. I've faithfully mentioned facts, and I don't think they are disputable. I have not spoken unfavorably of her resignation, which I supported, nor of her wealth, which I applaud, or how she made it, which is by taking advantage of the opportunities provided to her by her popularity and message.