[wtc911]

She took advantage of the opportunities that exist in the US.....

_____________________________________

Yes, by quitting the job for which she had campaigned and to which the people of Alaska had elected her. That is the crux of it.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Aren't you the pothole who said he would have stayed in the job even if it bankrupted your family and brought the Executive Branch of the State of Alaska to a grinding halt?

[pgkdan]

Yes, by quitting the job for which she had campaigned and to which the people of Alaska had elected her. That is the crux of it.

I don't understand how people can so blithely accept that fact. That points to at least the potential for a huge character flaw! Not a trait I want in my next President.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

OK, but for one, there is in law a valid legal defense known generally as “impossibility”. I agree to lease your building. Tornado blows down building. Our deal is dead.

Now I admit that would not fully apply to SP’s situation. (Nor am I an attorney) but she did not campaign to be the brunt of over a dozen lawsuits...and she has at least a plausible claim that she could no longer perform her duties due to the time and documentary demands of having to respond to all those lawsuits. Nor could she afford her legal defense given her income vs the lawyers’ bills.

Secondly, she replaced herself with someone (and I don’t know the exact DNA policy match between her and her replacement) but this is a valid thing, that a sitting governor replaces him/herself with their Lt. Governor. And it happens/happened at no extra cost to the taxpayers. It’s simply not unprecedented.

I agree, it’s at least somewhat of a valid argument. I just don’t regard it as a be-all end-all deal killer.