To keep from being personally bankrupted by a poorly written state ethics law which made her legal defense from these charges her personal legal responsibility. I would have preferred she stayed, there were things she still needed to do in Alaska and probably only she had the moral authority to make sure it happened and wasn’t eroded away by the Alaskan RINOS & Crony Capitalists.(Which apparently is happening!) However she left to avoid being bankrupted. Now consider how that would have been played politically by the RATs? (I doubt seriously it could have been spun into conservative martyr!) So she leaves and is labeled a “quitter”, which by her calculus the least “bad choice”. Yes an unusual move politically sort of jujitsu like in its approach where you project a “controlled weakness” to set up the counter-stroke. If she pulls it off, a state college BS journalism major beauty pageant queen will have made jackasses of all the Ivy League trained political operatives. If it works SWEET !! I think this bus tour is her “checking the ground” to set up the match ending throw. If she can find the place to stand, it will be a thing of beauty!
Karl Rove should know better he isn’t one of those Ivy League trained elites (apparently he is a wannabe!). He has forgot his roots. He like Newt have spent too long in DC and have become part of the problem not part of the solution!
Yeah,,, Cheney and Gravitas. “Too busy doing other things” to serve in the military,,, but sure found time to jump on the Tailhook horse and beat on the Navy.
And Cheney is a Bush clone,, NWO, open borders, gay marriage, etc.
I’ll never understand this Cheney cult. Sarah has twice the balls of Cheney.
“Think about what it’s like to watch Cheney interviewed- now that is gravitas.”
Gravitas as you illustrate is what an actor demonstrates. Martin Sheen could look just as serious in his answers. I wouldnt want him as president. TRUE “gravitas” is what Sarah has,,, it means no BS. When she says something, you don’t have to figure out where she really stands, or where her loyalties lie. Unlike Cheney.
Cheney is called tough and serious because he’s willing to order better men than himself into battle. (men who must not have “more important things to do”) And meanwhile, stays busy flooding the country with Mexicans, supporting the North American Union, etc. I see very little “conservative” in Cheney.
She has to demonstrate why the decision to leave the position made sense. To me, it was very unusual if she had eyes on the white house, however, the reasoning around the endless frivolous lawsuits is very sound.
The same question can be asked of Romney. Why did he leave after a term? The answer is that he wouldn’t be reelected, so why then is he a viable candidate? I am certain Palin would have had little trouble with reelection should she have run again.
No candidate is perfect, and each has to prove themselves. I agree, Cheney is most impressive in interviews. At the same time, I wonder if he would ever have been electible from a charisma perspective. He certainly would have had my vote at anytime.