Replies

“Reagan didn’t have Federal experience either.”

Or Carter, or Clinton, Bush II...just in recent times. That is simply not even a valid criticism of Palin.

The valid criticism of Palin is not completing her term. I have listened to a lot of apologists for her resignation, but have not found the explanations persuasive enough, from the standpoint of a non-idealogy driven independent voter.

Any candidate needs a lot of those type voters, to win. That is the prism we must consider, in sizing up the prospects of prospective candidates.

I have listened to a lot of apologists for her resignation, but have not found the explanations persuasive enough, from the standpoint of a non-idealogy driven independent voter.

You can look at the resignation in two ways, first in the light of the politics of personal destruction advocated by Saul Alinsky, brought to new heights by the Clintons, and adopted fully by the Progressives. Once exposed as a national public figure and a potential 2012 factor, the destruction of Gov. Palin was at the top of the list of to-dos for dems. They needed to make the remaining years of her term ineffective and they needed to reduce her popularity in Alaska. The tactic used was consistent filing of ethics complaints against her. When the average person is told that a politician has ethics complaints, they assume that the person is crooked and they view them with doubt and skepticism. Of course the complaints they filed were ridiculous and false and were later proven so, but in the process, her popularity was affected, her administration was preoccupied with defending the allegations and her personal finances were drained due to an Alaska law requiring governors to pay personally to defend ethics law suits. If Gov. Palin left the state, she was sued. If she stayed in the state and did anything, she was sued. She established a legal defense fund and she was sued for that too. The dems had succeeded in checkmating her. This gave Gov.Palin a choice. She could stay in office, play their game and lose , be ineffective for the state of Alaska and amass legal bills that would drive her into bankruptcy or she could change the game by resigning and playing a role in a much bigger game that was winnable.
This first way of looking at the resignation is probably more complex than most people will take the time to consider.

A simpler way of understanding it is by looking backwards at it from the present. Would you rather have had Gov.Palin waste 18 months as a stalemated executive in Alaska or would you rather that she played the role she did in the 2010 elections and why is it that the people complaining about her resigning are the same ones that never wanted her as governor in the first place? This view also credits Gov. Palin with the degree of political insight that she has proven to possess.

Some of the problems with demanding federal experience are the following:

1. You limit yourself to about 600-700 people. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Anyone can run.

2. Governors tend to be successful Presidents, retreads from the House of Representatives and Senators much less so. One of my worries in the last election was that we had two Senators running. Senators are theoriticians, Reps less so but both groups are isolated from their electorate by distance. Repubs now have a large numbe of governors to choose from and it gives the warm and fuzzies to see them line up for the Prez candidacy.
Congressionals theorize in DC, Governors are the guys in the aluminum boats helping to pull people out of the flood. Give me a Governor everytime.