It’s hard to feel sorry for Sarah Palin.
She recently resigned as governor of Alaska because she felt she was the victim of the “political of personal destruction”.
This is curious from a couple of perspectives.
First, I agree with her. The level of abuse that public officials take these days does seem extreme. It’s hard for me to understand why anyone would willingly submit themselves to what in many cases amounts to slander.
On the other hand, knowing that the politics of personal destruction are a part of the reality of political life in this country, it’s also hard for me to square her concerns and her clear ambition for national office. It’s as if she is saying that she wants the spotlight, but doesn’t like the glare.
It has to be crystal clear to those who have political ambitions that even a hint of impropriety these days can be blown into a career threatening incident. So one of the new qualifications for office is your ability to recognize what could become toxic and avoid those situations. Rather than avoid situations which could cause controversy, she seems to thrive on them and then bleat to her supporters about how she has been treated unfairly. Either she is inept, or she is manipulating both the press and her supporters who eagerly rally to her side and donate to her cause when they feel she needs defending.
For example, I agree that families of politicians should be off limits as long as the politicians themselves don’t make those families an issue in the campaign. So it was way off base when Rush Limbaugh and John McCain made jokes about Chelsea Clinton because the Clintons kept her out of the spotlight. Palin, however, used her children to support her claim that she was qualified for office. She introduced them to the nation and they campaigned with her. You can’t have it both ways.
Similarly, you can’t condemn the politics of personal destruction (a term coined by President Clinton) when they are directed at you and liberally employ them when it suits your purposes. If you recall, it was Palin who coined the “pals around with terrorists” phrase. She was also eager to bring then candidate Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright into the debate over the objections of her running mate.
Finally, ethical concerns remain unanswered from her campaign and her time in office. Whether or not these concerns were legit or politically motivated really isn’t the issue. Clearly they are politically motivated. But so were the eight years and millions of dollars the Republican congress gave Ken Stark to dig up something on President Clinton and his wife.
At the end of the day, I find myself agreeing with Levi Johnson. He has said that it is all about money. According to him, his almost mother-in-law felt her opportunity to cash in on her new found notoriety was now. If she waited until her term expired, she would risk being discredited by one or more of the ongoing investigations as well as the short attention span of the American public. She will make lots of money from book deals, speaking engagements, and fund raisers. She will be free to comment on the issues of the day and keep herself in public view. It is likely that she will also mount another campaign in 2012, God help us all.
I watched on tv as she was put into the national spot light the day mccain brought her on. I watched as EVERY news women not on Fox reported with discussed on a women THEY DIDN”T KNOW or KNEW NOTHING ABOUT. At the time she had an 85% approval rating in her state an had gotten a lot done while being opposed by her own party. Within days the DNC dropped in 30 lawers to “go get the real story.” Her approvals dropped from that day forward.
Can you and I agree that it is not helpful the way we treat our national politic. BOTH sides are guilty not just one. I am seeing the Republicans doing exactly the same things to Obama on the stimulas that the dems did to Bush on Iraq. The constant drip, srip, srip and over playing of the bad news. I’m betting that my only disagreement with you here is the you don’t see the other side of the coin. Iraq didn’t need to turn out or last as long as it did. The dems HURT the cause…I only hope the repubs don’t hurt the cause with the economy in the same way. I am totally opposed to all the Obama suggests….but lets not kill the economy in the process.
Finally, this moring I saw the same thing that drove me crazy four years ago. Already with the polling of head to head matchups for 2012 mitt 45% v Obama 45%….palin v Obama 48% – 45%…this isn’t helpful. wasn’t four years ago and it isn’t now.
One of my opening comments in my post was that I think that our current system of crucification for political candidates is insane. The Italian prime minister openly admits to multiple mistresses. He is just taking issue with the claim that he paid some of them.
She is back in the news again this week because of ethical concerns about her legal defense fund. A report was leaked to the press that details points where that fund violates Alaska ethics laws. Mrs. Palin’s response was that it was setup by an experienced lawyer who claims that no laws were violated.
The ethical issue is whether an elected official can use their office for personal gain. The private legal defense fund clearly benefits Mrs. Palin because she doesn’t have to pay the personal legal bills out of her own pocket. Alaska law says that you can’t do that, even if you never intended to provide any political favors for those who contributed. The issue is not whether you set up the fund in a way that shielded those contributors from having access to the governor. The issue was that the very existence of the fund regardless of how it was setup violates their state law. If Mrs. Palin did hire an experienced lawyer, I’m certain that this lawyer told her of the risks that she was taking.
That certainly raises many of the same questions that have been raised all through her time on the national stage. Either she is unaware of the consequences of her actions, which is scary, or she is completely aware of the consequences and feels that they don’t apply to her – WAY more scary.