WHY DID SARAH PALIN RESIGN?

THE FREEDOM POST ^ | July 4, 2009 | TheCapitalist

[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.

[Terpfen]

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.

[Terpfen]

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.

[ManLaws]

“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.