Driving to an appointment on Friday, I caught the tail end of a radio news report.
“It’s going to be difficult to get a transition team going in two weeks. It’s a lot to ask of an incoming governor.”
My ears perked up. Was it our own Michigan’s Governor Jen leaving for greener pastures? (When you live in Michigan, every pasture is greener, even the ones in the desert. Even the ones in Toledo.) Was it the beleaguered South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford? (It’s one thing for a public figure to have an affair but when you rub the words “soul mate” into the marital wound during a press conference, you show little sense and tact and should quit.)
No, it was neither. In a bombshell rivaling those going off overhead on July Fourth, it was Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who decided to step down from her post effective at the end of the month.
Like everything else Governor Palin does, her move set off a nuclear blast of media.
So she’s not going for another term and doesn’t want to waste the taxpayer dollars. So she wants to concentrate on her family. So she claims she is answering a higher calling. So she’s dogged by lawsuits that are draining her finances.
So?
Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. What were you thinking?
Although I’m not a Republican and don’t agree with much of her philosophical leanings, I liked her. I read President Obama’s book and liked him too.
Sure she came from a state so far removed from the rest of the United States that most people think of it as backwoods. Sure, she was green, a virtual tenderfoot in the rough-and-tumble world of politics. She was the quintessential anti-politician, which is why many people found her appealing. There are many of us who can barely keep our lunches down when we meet a politician. Most are obviously phony and spew rhetoric while dodging the issues. Say what you want about Sarah Palin, she seemed like a genuine human being first and an accidental politician second. Her anti-politician stance made her few friends in the McCain camp and they were supposedly on the same side.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Righteous Fury
A genuine human being? The human beings I know are warm, and have had a few more civics classes than her, to be certain. This woman was not only vacuous, she was snarky as well. She was brought into McCain's political camp as a foil for Hillary Clinton. Because, when you looked at the Democrats they had a woman and an African American as contenders for the presidency. When you looked at the Republican camp they had a bunch of old white men. How symbolic of how sad they've grown (or not grown) as a political party.
2 - Clavos
This woman was not only vacuous, she was snarky as well.
Was? She's not dead, much as you obviously would like her to be.
3 - El Bicho
"she seemed like a genuine human being first and an accidental politician second."
Then it appears she fooled you.
4 - Matthew T. Sussman
How else can you grab attention away from Iran and Michael Jackson? Abruptly resign for no reason.
Her future? I'm going to say talk radio show, or perhaps U.S. senator. Either way it'll get people in Washington talking about her again.
5 - Ruvy
You haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin, folks. That's a gut feeling. She is one of the very few American politicians who might actually have an honest willingness to back Israel - even more than her own traitorous regime is willing to back her.
6 - Dave Nalle
I was actually thinking a surprise anchor gig with Fox would make some sense for Palin.
Clearly she realizes that governor of Alaska is not enough of a resume to run for President.
I'm thinking she might be taking a leaf from the Teddy Roosevelt play manual. Roosevelt went through a series of high-prominence jobs in a relatively short period of time building up his credentials. I doubt that Palin can start a war and then form her own military unit to go fight in it, but a job in the media and then maybe a job heading up a prominent political organization would be a good start.
How about a show on Fox and then taking over Charlton Heston's old job as spokesman for the NRA?
DAve
7 - Baronius
As I've written elsewhere on this site, I believe that if her goal is the presidency, this was a bad move. I like her, but I have always considered her to be insufficient in experience. She won't be any more experienced in 2012 than she is today.
On the other hand, if she wants to take a few years off to raise her family, then come back and serve in government for a decade or so then run for the presidency, I'd be happy to support her. So this decision doesn't permanently disqualify her in my eyes.
One thing does trouble me. A lot of us hated the length of the last campaign. By talking about Palin's possible strategy, aren't we accepting a three-and-a-half-year campaign for 2012?
8 - Rick Garner
Latest blog post: Palin Keeps 'em Guessin'.
9 - Arch Conservative
Despite the fact that Palin is very popular among Republicans/Conservatives I can't help but find her annoying.
Anyway it's all about Mitt Romney in 2012. He is gainign momentum and popularity with each billion King Barry wastes.
If we're even able to have an election in 2012 I am going to look forward to watching Romney crush Barry like the slimy little cockraoch he is.
1-20-13 Our long national nightmare is over
10 - zedd
Did you people listen to the same speech that I heard?
She sounded wacky, disjointed, perhaps high, certainly weird. She seemed to have lost her grip. Oh and that weird sports analogy about herself.... cringe city.
News anchor?
What's going on around here?
11 - Dr Dreadful
You may be right about Romney/GOP/2012, Arch. It's becoming abundantly clear that he's about the only prominent Republican left standing who could find his own ass with both hands.
Being able to beat Obama, though, that's another story. It's going to take a bit more than Having Nice Hair and Looking Good In A Suit.
12 - Baronius
Why, Doctor D, you're so right, the Republicans might as well just give up now! (I was going for the verbiage of a side-show shill. I hope that came out ok.)
This far out, we don't really know who either party's 2012 nominee is going to be, or what will be the dominant issues. And sometimes, showing up in a nice suit is enough to beat an incumbant. So I don't see any reason to play the horserace game.
13 - El Bicho
This far out, Obama for the Dems is safe bet. When was the last time a party turned out its own member as President? I know from watching "John Adams" (shameless review plug) it's happened, but that was a while ago.
14 - m ark
Nalle for Pres 2012.
15 - handyguy
Yeah, maybe just a little premature, referring to the first Obama term as a 'long national nightmare' less than 6 months in.
It's all about the economy. And no one on any part of the political spectrum seems to have done such a great job predicting the last 18 months. So predicting the next 3 years might prove a bit challenging. No doubt there are several BC commenters happy to give it a try.
If the economy still looks awful next summer, it's bad news for the Dems in Congress. And if it still looks bad 3 years from now, the political consequences may be secondary. We may all be jobless and homeless.
My own fearless crystal ball says the economy will be ambiguous next year, some good and some bad signs, so no definitive political outcome. And by 2012 the cycle should be on its way up again. [The economy has dropped out of first place as the Biggest Issue on Americans' Minds in some recent polls.]
I'd love to be rid of Palin. I think she brings the general political discourse down to her own level, which is to say cringe-worthy. If a large enough percentage of voters are just Sick of Everybody, she might have a shot in 2012.
I believe that is a very long shot indeed.
16 - Lumpy
Handyguy's crystal ball is broken or has been taken over by the MSM propaganda machine.
I always lAugh when leftists try to tell republicans who their presidential candidate Just has to be. Mitt Romney is a waste of a dollar worth of otherwise useful chemicals. He's a gold ticket to four more years of Obama.
17 - El Bicho
Didn't realize Arch was a leftist, Lumpy. Thanks for the insightful clarification.
18 - Arch Conservative
The fact is that Romney has forgotten more about economics and business than Obama will ever now.
Unless you're still drinking the koolaid, which many are, it's obvious that Obama is in way over his head. His ONLY solution to EVERY problem is more spending and government control and yet his whackadoo followers still gripe when he's called a socialist.
My crystal ball says that regardless of who the GOP runs in 2012 most people will, much before then, grow very tiresome of Barry's arrogance and penchant to condescend to the American public as he tries to exert ever more control over our lives and steal more money from us.
His poll numbers are already plumetting. Despite the fact that the NYT times has released a couple of rugged polls most AMericans do not support either cap and trade nor government run healthcare. Colin Powell is second guessing him. Helen Thomas is getting lippy with Herr Goebels at the White House press conferences. And through it all Barry has been his smug self. He still hasn't gotten the memo saying he's not the messiah I guess.
19 - Dr Dreadful
The fact is that Romney has forgotten more about economics and business than Obama will ever now.
If he's forgotten it, how do you know what he knew? :-)
His ONLY solution to EVERY problem is more spending and government control...
His only solution? Knowing your views, Arch, I realize that this is like lighting the blue touch paper, but does this one, for instance, really represent increased government spending and control...?
My crystal ball says that regardless of who the GOP runs in 2012 most people will, much before then, grow very tiresome of Barry's arrogance...
And those of us BCers who know and love you are very familiar with your scintillating record when it comes to political predictions...
Despite the fact that the NYT times has released a couple of rugged polls most AMericans do not support either cap and trade nor government run healthcare.
Well, at least the NYT has polls to support its argument. What do you have to support yours?
20 - El Bicho
is that the same crystal ball that told you the Repubs would hold both houses in 2006?
21 - Dr Dreadful
And the one that told him Mitt Romney would be President right now.
22 - handyguy
Arch's predictions last year included: Giuliani will beat that 'c--t' Hillary; Mitt will beat that 'asshole' McCain; and no way that empty suit Obama could ever win in the fall. And some various observations about illegal immigration being obviously the top issue on voters' minds.
So maybe Mitt should be worried about 2012.
I wouldn't be surprised if some lesser known figure came 'from nowhere' to take the GOP nomination. That is usually a Dem pattern [Carter, Clinton, Obama were all but unknown 3 years ahead of their elections], but the current GOP field is very meager and the right fresh face could do it.
23 - Matthew T. Sussman
So, who's going to win the World Series in 2012? My money's on Tel Aviv.
(SERIOUSLY, people.)
24 - Dr Dreadful
I dunno about Obama being unknown 3 years ago, Handy. He wowed the 2004 Democratic Convention with his keynote speech, proceeded to be the only Democrat to win a Republican seat that November in a year that was, in all other respects, a complete train wreck for the party.
He was most assuredly marked as one to watch even then, although I don't think many people thought he'd rise so far, so fast.
25 - Ruvy
DD,
He wowed the 2004 Democratic Convention with his keynote speech, proceeded to be the only Democrat to win a Republican seat that November in a year that was, in all other respects, a complete train wreck for the party
A rabbi made a similar point about Obama duering last year's campaign - putting it in a religious framework. Obama's keynote speech was delivered to the Democratic convention on Tish'a b'Av, traditionally a day of disaster for the Jewish poeple - and also a day marking the "birth of the messiah" - in other words a finger pointing at a source of messianic Redemption.
Obviously Obama is no messiah for us; he surrounds himself with haters of Israel and pursues daily a policy of weakening this nation. But it may just from this policy that the events which bring that Redemption will arise. I certainly think so.
And yes, he seemed marked then as someone to watch; though his rise to power has been phenomenally fast, his fall may be equally phenomenally fast.