Posted on 06/08/2010 5:34:13 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative
She was FORCED out for financial reasons. If anyone tells you she quit let them know otherwise.
Her legal fee had accumulated higher than 500K. Her personal income was JUST OVER 100K a year. Financially her family was going under quickly. And they were filing another ethics complaint everytime she left the state. She was afraid to give interviews in the governors office. She was afraid to allow anyone other than staff in the Governors office after the TaserGate ordeal. They were destroying her. So, what were her options ? She tried to set up a legal defense fund. At that point some Democrat judge in Alaska accused THAT of being unethical.
So calling her a quitter is vile and ignorant. I am a no nonsense person. But get the facts straight and have some respect for a fellow human being.
Well, I’d like to see proof of the numbers this guy is citing...I’m inclined to doubt them.
Her earning potential when she quit was QUITE considerable, so quitting over a debt of that size makes NO sense.
Quitting was d-u-m-b if she ever wants to run for POTUS.
She had no choice. The system let her down: they kept allowing the frivolous law suits against her. She had to defend herself and lawyers don’t come cheap. Plus, it was detracting from her job as Governor. She either won every suit or some were eventually thrown out. Palin made a lot of enemies as she dregged the political cesspool in Alaska.
Detail what “stick it out” would have looked like.
Quit. So does that mean she can no longer hold public office? Hell no, I’d vote for her
Thread humper... hehe!
500K in debt.
How was she supposed to pay her bills ?
I must know finances more than you. So I guess I will give you a little lecture. When you only have a certain amount of money coming in. Only a certain amount can go out. When you can’t pay those bills, you either have to make some extreme chances or go into debt. Once you are in debt, your credit goes bad. Bankruptcy laws are harder these days. If you are ever able to file for bankruptcy, you have to rebuild with no credit. You can’t even stay in a hotel without a credit card these days.
So that has to be considered.
A forced resignation is not a voluntary quit. She did not quit on the Alaskan people; she sacrificed herself for them so that she and the state would not be paralyzed by the successive, costly, time-consuming, bogus ethics complaints that never would have stopped. I admire that kind of selflessness. Think of how many pols refuse to resign when they are guilty of corruption, and think of the resultant harm to their offices and the people.
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/032209/sta_413174352.shtml
Stick it out. Go deeper into debt ? Have her credit ruined ?
You can’t even buy a car without good credit !
“Dumb”....
Judgmental, aren’t we?
Detail your “smart” move please.
She was indeed in a position to raise a lot of money — but not in the office of the governor. As long as the Alaskan legislature did not impeach her (on what legal grounds? no high crimes, no misdemeanors) the liberals would have kept strip mining Alaska’s financial resources fighting this endless rope a dope even if Sarah was happy to live in a cardboard box. Then they have the nerve to taunt her with “quitter!” and apparently so do a bunch of you.
It was dumb, and she had plenty of choices besides simply quitting.
I like her, but making excuses and rationalizing her decision is inane.
Call it whatever makes you happy.
She still could have written her book and made money. She doesn’t seem too worried now. She made a trade off which may come back to haunt her.
Doesn’t matter what I think, it will matter to those who she has yet to win over.
But....the fact remains, she resigned her job as governor. She was not forced out. So this vanity is merely a way to ramp up angst on FR.
I think it was money and reality. Every day that she remained in office, the Dems would tar her every word and deed - stacking it up for use during the presidential campaign later. They were screaming and pointing - ETHICS! ETHICS! every time she addressed the public she served in her state. She said at the time that it was counter productive and that she would not be allowed to serve the people who voted her into office. I absolutely believe that and it was already happening at the time she said it. Accusation after accusation. Lawyers flocking to file motions to demand access, question ethics, petition for her to be reprimanded. ALL of that would have been presented as ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire’ proof that she was highly corrupted. The lawyers and plaintiffs would never even need to go to court - all they had to do was file, file, file. If she had continued in office,she would have gone bankrupt and if she tried to run for POTUS, I can just see the commercials against her droning on - endlessly listing the legal actions, motions, ethics ‘concerns’ that ‘the whole state’ (Dem lawyers)had against her. It was a daring move to resign - her opponents would indeed mock her for ‘quitting’ but it was a no win situation. I think she did the right thing. There are Repubs who genuinely feel that it was the wrong thing to do, Repubs who hate Palin and will use this against her - and the rest are squalling Dems trying to make sure they bury her - IMHO
PS: We’ll still see all that they managed to file against her those days that she was in office should she run for POTUS.
When the choice is financial ruin vs leaving..
there really is no choice
Please provide a link for this article.
Yeah, she made something like $12 million since she left, and she is basically now a king maker in GOP primaries. After he highest profile endorsements, those candidates usually jump significantly in the poles. Where would she be right now if she stuck around through her first term? Do you think she would be in a better position should she want to run?
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.