No, I would have known exactly why she was being attacked. I like her and I’d vote for her, but she does seem to be willing to decamp, either for personal or political reasons, when the going gets rough.
It’s true that the Dems were chatting about assassinating her and doing many other awful things, but I wish she had stuck it out.
The frivolous lawsuits cost Alaska taxpayers $2Mil. Should she have stayed and cost the $4Mil? $6Mil?
She was in debt to lawyers for $500,000 with a higher bill in sight. A Governor earns $125,000. Her home was in jeopardy. Should she have lost it?
She was being "attacked" not with bullets, but with frivolous lawsuits. Got it?
The attempted "assassination" was FINANCIAL, and it was deliberate. GOT IT?
There were, if I recall correctly, 32 frivolous lawsuits when she left, and her own expenses to fight them were close to $600,000 (she was legally prevented by her enemies from paying it with a defense fund set up for her by her supporters). EVERY ONE of the lawsuits was dismissed, but she still had to pay the $half mill out of the Palin family finances.
Had she remained in office, there could very well have been 100 or more of these frivolous lawsuits filed (filers didn't have to pay a dime; on the other hand, Alaskan law required that the governor pay for defending the lawsuits out of her own pocket, and that her administration take time to do the paperwork to answer the suits), and the personal debt Palin already faced would likely have gone well over $1 million. The energy (on the taxpayers' dime) expended by her staff in the Governor's office to take care of the REQUIRED paperwork to answer the lawsuits would have not only paralyzed the administration from attending IMPORTANT work, but would also have cost millions more.
Your wish that she had "stuck it out" is therefore patently ludicrous unless you are among her enemies. Perhaps you really don't know "exactly why she was being attacked." DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Understand that there are good REASONS so many of us here reject the "she quit because she couldn't handle the heat" argument -- we're not just rejecting it because it makes us feel good -- we're rejecting it because the facts confirm that the argument is BOGUS, propaganda, deceit.
In general, she was being attacked by Democrats for the specific purpose of either driving her out of office or driving her to personal bankruptcy. Specifically, she was being attacked for such things as wearing a ballcap with a fish on it, or having a certain logo on her t-shirt. The people filing the lawsuits didn't care whether they stuck or not, because it didn't matter -- all that mattered was that if they threw enough of them at Palin, they KNEW she'd either have to resign or go bankrupt.
You are either woefully ignorant of the facts, or lying when you imply "I like Palin but ...." One of the other. Either way, your credibility just nose-dived. You really love the idea that Palin couldn't take the political heat ("when the going gets rough.") It must irk you no end when FReepers reveal the truth that the heat Palin couldn't take was FINANCIAL.
And it must REALLY irk you that an attempt to make Palin poorer, ended up backfiring and making her wealthier than ever.
Personally, I think either you're very ignorant and shallowly informed, OR you're bent on opposing Palin and convincing others on FR to join you even if you have to be deceitful to get them on your side. You are one or the other.
Why don't you explain, here and now, what you mean by "when the going gets rough?"