Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WHY DID SARAH PALIN RESIGN?
THE FREEDOM POST ^ | July 4, 2009 | TheCapitalist

Posted on 07/04/2009 4:35:55 PM PDT by TheFreedomPoster

Obviously, the fifteen frivolous ethics violation charges, all dismissed, were more than beginning to take their toll on her, her family, and becoming a distraction from her ability to effectively govern the State. She did mention in her speech that she had personally incurred over $500,000 in legal bills, "just to set the record straight," and she had to be wondering if the onslaught of attacks from her political opponents would ever stop.

(Excerpt) Read more at myfreedompost.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: resign; resignation; sarahpalin

1 posted on 07/04/2009 4:35:55 PM PDT by TheFreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster

Simple: to start up a national campaign base in the lower 48 states. Not hard to figure out. It’s nearly impossible to run for president from Alaska.


2 posted on 07/04/2009 4:37:00 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster

Did you read her resignation speech? It may have a few answers for you.


3 posted on 07/04/2009 4:37:52 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster

Does she have to repeat her speech using sock puppets..she stated point blank why she was resigning..also read her facebook posting today, she goes into even more detail


4 posted on 07/04/2009 4:40:28 PM PDT by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster

This is why!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA4bEoHNiWM


5 posted on 07/04/2009 4:41:12 PM PDT by CommieCutter (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/qt/3013_08.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

I wonder why she doesn’t lead a NEW kind of political party. I think she would draw a lot of people, and create a real change...and forget the RNC, and the bag of $150,000 clothes they wanted her to wear. She would look GOOD in clothes purchased at GOODWILL...maybe we’ll all be buying there if Obama still is in power.


6 posted on 07/04/2009 4:42:17 PM PDT by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster

I know, let’s write a blog entry about it. Just in case we missed something that a million other people haven’t sifted through in the past 24 hours.


7 posted on 07/04/2009 4:44:09 PM PDT by TADSLOS (Sarah Palin: Sun Tzu of Politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez
I wonder why she doesn’t lead a NEW kind of political party.

Because third parties never get off the ground. Not even Teddy Roosevelt could create a successful third party. Reagan understood that the best path for the enactment and preservation of conservatism is through the Republican Party: Sarah Palin does too.
8 posted on 07/04/2009 4:44:30 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

Remember Ross Perot? After he left (and did the dirty deeds of screwing Bush 41 and Dole), his party quickly fell apart. In its final death gasps, the kooks took over and it was a circus (all for the CSPAN cameras to record).


9 posted on 07/04/2009 4:47:54 PM PDT by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

I don’t see how she can run for President now. She will be viewed as a quitter when times got tough, simple as that.


10 posted on 07/04/2009 4:50:12 PM PDT by jwb0581 (Borders, Language, Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jwb0581

It may be that she has chosen to change the locus and nature of the battlefield, to one that does not involve the government and taxpayers of Alaska in responding to an endless stream of frivolous ethics charges. But the frivolous charges won’t cease so long as Sarah remains who she obviously is, a burr under the saddle of Radical Feminism and an offense to the Progressive Welfare Statists.


11 posted on 07/04/2009 4:56:13 PM PDT by Elsiejay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster

It occurs to me to wonder: once she’s gone back to being a private citizen, does this mean that when Tina Fey does an insulting impression of her, or David Letterman tells a “joke” about raping her daughter, or Playboy publishes a “joke” about raping her, it’s no longer something she has to put up with but now something she can sue over?


12 posted on 07/04/2009 4:56:18 PM PDT by Lucretia Borgia (I will be happy to show Obama the same respect the Democrats gave Reagan, Bush, and Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwb0581

She’s no quitter. Folks will figure this out real soon. Except the PDS crowd, whose heads should explode as she keep them off balance.

Lots of people have left govt service to make enough money to take care of their families and to speak out on issues without the constraints of their office..


13 posted on 07/04/2009 4:57:32 PM PDT by silverleaf ("Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal ( Martin Luther King))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lucretia Borgia

I HOPE SO.

Defamation of character....recourse against malicious court filings...and counter suits for damages. I’d like to see that fat DNC operative blogger in Alaska pay court costs for every baseless suit she files and loses.


14 posted on 07/04/2009 4:59:49 PM PDT by silverleaf ("Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal ( Martin Luther King))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Her Independence Day greeting posted on her web site sure doesn’t sound like she’s retiring.

Here are her target points from the last paragraph.

less government intervention,
greater energy independence,
stronger national security, and
much-needed fiscal restraint.

Sure sound like national goals to me.


15 posted on 07/04/2009 5:07:30 PM PDT by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jwb0581

You need to become a deeper thinker, friend.


16 posted on 07/04/2009 5:10:09 PM PDT by ErnBatavia (Impeach now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster
Governor Palin is not a masochist.
17 posted on 07/04/2009 5:14:50 PM PDT by LiberConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster
So she could flank the enemy and attack.


18 posted on 07/04/2009 5:16:11 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberConservative

Touche


19 posted on 07/04/2009 5:21:36 PM PDT by techno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lucretia Borgia
"It occurs to me to wonder: once she’s gone back to being a private citizen, does this mean that when Tina Fey does an insulting impression of her, or David Letterman tells a “joke” about raping her daughter, or Playboy publishes a “joke” about raping her, it’s no longer something she has to put up with but now something she can sue over?"

It changes nothing. Holding public office has never been a requirement for being a public figure.

20 posted on 07/04/2009 5:36:24 PM PDT by Kleon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster

I have watched in wonder as every “reporter” on various networks interviews every imaginable person to try to figure out exactly why Gov. Palin resigned. It is abundantly clear by their questioning that the media personalities have never owned a business or attained a position with more responsibility than daily wardrobe choices, or the answer would be obvious. When someone of good character and conscience assumes leadership “command and control” of any organization, a good leader will place the needs and interests of those led/served above their own.

For those who still don’t understand, let me explain. Gov. Palin is not running from the personal assaults against herself and her family, although who could really blame her if she did try to shield her children from the filth and evil in the minds of some of her most fervent attackers. She has chosen to remove herself from a situation that has become both costly and unproductive for the government and people of Alaska.

In the face of unrelenting ethics attacks that wasted the time, money, and talents of the citizens of Alaska that Gov. Palin had sworn to faithfully serve, she finally said “enough” in order to end the waste, fraud, and abuse perpetrated against the people of Alaska. It appears that Gov. Palin made careful arrangements to provide a smooth if not seemless transfer of power to the Lt. Gov. at the end of July, and this was not a hasty personal retreat.

Bottom line, Gov. Palin saw the damage that the personal attacks against her were doing to the people and government of Alaska through her, and chose to fall on the grenade to save the people and state that she loves so dearly.

In my line of work, we call these HEROES.


21 posted on 07/04/2009 5:40:12 PM PDT by LTC.Ret (I didn't spend 31 years in the Army to see my USA turn socialist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwb0581

The only people looking at Palin as a quitter are people who were disinclined to support her in the first place.


22 posted on 07/04/2009 5:49:03 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

“Not hard to figure out.”

Well good for you. Because I, and most other people, are baffled. Do you have some sort of inside info we don’t?


23 posted on 07/04/2009 6:01:59 PM PDT by ManLaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ManLaws

You actually thought she’s quitting just in order to go away permanently? Wow.

No wonder you’re being snarky, you don’t have a clue.


24 posted on 07/04/2009 6:13:51 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

God Jeff, I pray your right.

We are on a fast train to hell and somebody better find a damned brakemen...


25 posted on 07/04/2009 6:14:28 PM PDT by TSgt (Extreme vitriol and rancorous replies served daily. - Mike W USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

“Because third parties never get off the ground... Reagan understood that the best path for the enactment and preservation of conservatism is through the Republican Party”

The Republican Party was once an outsider party, fighting for a place at the table after the Whigs fell apart.

We’ve almost always been a two party system, but not the same two parties. Sometimes the parties change without changing their names; sometimes they fall apart altogether. Don’t know if it’s time for the Republicans to change, fall apart, or stay the same. But you never know when it’s time for an implosion.


26 posted on 07/04/2009 6:50:46 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kleon

“Holding public office has never been a requirement for being a public figure”

Exactly. If Michael Jackson had to put up with abuse, so does Sarah Palin.


27 posted on 07/04/2009 6:52:27 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MikeWUSAF
I believe, and hope and pray, that Sarah can be that person.

We are at a pivotal crossroads in our nation's history. A very steep, very hard and dangerous roads leads one way...an abject fatal precipice leads the other.

A JULY 4TH TEA PARTY SPEECH IN AMERICA

WHEN TRUTH BECOMES TREASON

BTW, you may like this if you are on facebook...just started:


Let's find over 1,000,000 supporters of the U.S. Air Force

28 posted on 07/04/2009 7:09:06 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TheFreedomPoster
"Why would she not just finish out her term to completion?"

She made it clear, in her statement, why she's resigning. I'm sure there will be all kinds of motives attributed to her, but I'm taking her at her word.

29 posted on 07/04/2009 7:16:00 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
The Republican Party was once an outsider party, fighting for a place at the table after the Whigs fell apart.

The Republican Party was the ghost of the Whig Party and gained a toehold in power only because of the sheer force of anti-slavery sentiment outside of the South. There is no political issue today that generates that kind of passion.

The best hope a third party in America can have is to generate enough interest in an issue that it causes one of the two major parties to alter its platform. And even that is pretty rare.

The Republican Party is the best vehicle by which conservatism can advance.
30 posted on 07/04/2009 7:18:50 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ManLaws
Because I, and most other people, are baffled. Do you have some sort of inside info we don’t?

Watch the video of the statement, or read the transcript. She says it plainly.

31 posted on 07/04/2009 7:19:43 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

“The Republican Party...gained a toehold in power only because of the sheer force of anti-slavery sentiment outside of the South.”

You can make the argument that the Whigs never would have broken up but for the slavery issue. But someone had to take over the old Whig constituency. Whether or not it was the Republicans who did so, a new party(/parties) was in order.


32 posted on 07/04/2009 7:23:25 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

“There is no political issue today that generates that kind of passion.”

No, there isn’t. But it need not always be one issue. It can be several. There are plenty of popular positions that remain largely untouched by Republicans, most importantly enforcement of immigration laws.


33 posted on 07/04/2009 7:24:53 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The trouble with saying “it can be several” is that the number of people who feel passionately in the same way about several issues is much smaller than the number of people who feel passionately about one issue.

At some point the math works against you.


34 posted on 07/04/2009 7:28:27 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LTC.Ret

Amen to what you said. Sarah Palin’s move was both couragous and selfless. Most career politicians would have clung onto that job till their last breath, regardless of the damage it may do to their state.


35 posted on 07/04/2009 7:32:59 PM PDT by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

Exactly. These people weren’t supporters of hers anyway.


36 posted on 07/04/2009 7:46:01 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist ("President Obama, your agenda is not new, it's not change, and it's not hope" - Rush Limbaugh 02/28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jwb0581
She will be viewed as a quitter when times got tough

Only through the eyes of leftists.

37 posted on 07/04/2009 7:48:32 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist ("President Obama, your agenda is not new, it's not change, and it's not hope" - Rush Limbaugh 02/28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

“the number of people who feel passionately in the same way about several issues is much smaller than the number of people who feel passionately about one issue”

I agree, except political parties are masters of combining diverse views under one tent, especially in the age of “identity politics”. The reason why Democrats were able to build a legislative majority for most of the latter part of the 20th century after they became the Big Government party under Wilson and FDR wasn’t because they pounded home a single issue. They didn’t come out and say, “We’re socialists. If you want socialism, vote for us.” Rather, they conquered group by group, offering something to unions, the “poor”, the elderly, racial minorities, and so on.

Look at things today and ask yourself, what is it that binds liberals to liberals and conservatives to conservatives. No one single thing. Some conservatives are big on national defense, while some are libertarians. Abortion is an indicator, but in itself means little, since both parties are more or less willing to sit with things as they are.

I realize not much of this is to the point, since various shades of opinion flock to either party because they don’t have much of an alternative. The idea being that in the beginning, Democrats and Republicans stood for something tangible. That if they’ve changed since—for instance from Jacksonians to Wilsonians—it was from within. That the only time they ever imploded, besides the Jeffersonian party building an irresistable consesus, was because of the one big issue of slavery.

Well, I don’t deny that the Whigs crumbled because of their mishandling of the slavery issue. But I don’t believe that’s the only reason a party ever could crumble. There are examples outside of American history. Perfectly reasonable to imagine one or more major party decaying, leading to a temporary multi-party system before one party is able to coalition-build its way toward majority.

That’s what worked for the Nazis. There were a lot of big issues swirling around then: “the peace,” the depression, and so on. Moderates were split between Christian “social democrats” and more traditional types. Nazis started out opposing communists, and manuevered their way into power by picking up veterans, proletariats, rebellious youths, national defense-ers, big business, etc. Different reasons for different groups, but in the end, there they all are.

One aspect of slavery as the Big Thing is right on. Something important must be happening. Slavery, depression, impending war. Something momentous. But we usually never know when the times are special while they’re happening. If aliens were able to decipher our language, and were given to study the general period before the Civil War, would they have been sure carnage was coming, and that a new dominant national majority would grow out of it? I don’t know. Hindsight obscures my view.

All I know is, there’s a depression happening, and a variety of issues not being adaquetely addressed for a large plurality of voters, from immigration to the drug war to the national debt to the war on terror to prok-barrel projects.


38 posted on 07/04/2009 7:55:18 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

“You actually thought she’s quitting just in order to go away permanently? Wow.”

Please point out to me where I suggested she was going away permanently. Cut and past accordingly. I won’t hold my breath.

My point was that nobody knows exactly what Sarah is doing right now, including YOU. So maybe the level-headed amongst us should adopt a “wait and see” approach before making “Madame Cleo” style predictions about her future plans. Like most news stories, the details will eventually find their way out.


39 posted on 07/04/2009 8:02:52 PM PDT by ManLaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ErnBatavia

Why is that? That is the reality of the situation, no?


40 posted on 07/04/2009 8:25:20 PM PDT by jwb0581 (Borders, Language, Culture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ManLaws
My point was that nobody knows exactly what Sarah is doing right now, including YOU.

And my point is that you are wrong. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
41 posted on 07/04/2009 8:41:08 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
I agree, except political parties are masters of combining diverse views under one tent, especially in the age of “identity politics”.

And third parties, being small organizations that are usually without politically-astute organizers, lack the ability to rally large numbers of people around a multitude of issues. That's why they never go anywhere: none of them can operate the necessary grassroots campaigns.

This is also why third parties generally galvanize around one issue: they lack the resources to do anything else. The Reform Party got off the ground for a short while because Ross Perot could bankroll everything himself, but it never developed an identity and it collapsed shortly after he left. The money got cut off and a bunch of idiots ran the show.

This is why I say the best a third party can hope to do is influence one of the two major parties' platforms on one issue: because, historically, it's all they've been able to do.
42 posted on 07/04/2009 8:45:28 PM PDT by Terpfen (Ain't over yet, folks. Those 2004 Senate gains are up for grabs in 2 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen

“and my point is that you are wrong”

Wrong about what? Saying I don’t know all the details behind her decision? That I don’t know her next move? How is that “wrong”?

I bet you won a lot of arguments…in middle school. Try acting like an adult.


43 posted on 07/05/2009 7:54:42 AM PDT by ManLaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson