An interesting argument, but it presumes that when someone actually RUNS for an office that has a term, that doing so does not imply the commitment to actually serve the term, barring something that obviously requires you to move on.
In general, if I work for a candidate to get them elected, I expect them to do the job. I understand that if they run for another office and get elected, they will have to leave — if McCain/Palin had won, nobody would be criticizing her for leaving the Governorship since she would have to do so to be VP.
So while we can argue the merits of her decision, or how much it really hurts or helps Alaska (I leave that to Alaskans), I really don’t think those who have said she was wrong say so because they have an obsession with public service.
As to Grassley’s comment, I do want the person I pick for President to have a lot of executive experience. Running a large corporation, or a large organization, would be a substitute for being in public leadership, but I’d like there to be leadership somewhere. McCain had it just a bit because he was an officer in the military. Obama had no leadership, and it shows now.
I don’t think I would ever support a person running for the President who didn’t have executive experience. Being Governor of Alaska was good executive experience, but 4 years would be better than 2.
CharlesWayneCT: “Being Governor of Alaska was good executive experience, but 4 years would be better than 2.”
Then you’re not buying her argument that she would do more harm to Alaska by staying rather than turning it over to another competent person? Plus you think she should operate at an extreme disadvantage, if she chooses to run for president in 2012, by trying to operate a campaign out of Alaska? And, you think she would be able to run such a campaign, serve her state, and take care of her family?
How many politicians have you know that have “served” in an office while campaigning. McCain didn’t resign as a senator, but do you honestly think he was serving his state well at the time he was campaigning?
Sarah doesn’t conform to typical political behaviors, and that’s exactly why I’m starting to like her more and more. I don’t care if she’s some deep conservative intellectual. I’m more impressed that she IS conservative.
As a point of reference, she already served through 3 of 4 legislative terms; leaving her hand-picked successor a full legislative session to have under his belt for his own election campaign.
Two points:
First, I agree wholeheartedly with the thesis of the article. Just a few days ago, I heard (for the umpteenth time) from a liberal co-worker that BHO was qualified for President because he attended Harvard. I have met and talked with Harvard, Yale, and Princeton graduates holding BA, Master’s, and Ph.D. degrees (I hold a Ph.D. of my own) — trust me, they are nothing to write home about. Some of them were dumber than a sack of bricks when it involved any topic outside their chosen area of study. That level of ignorance, however, was more than offset by their degree of arrogance.
That is one of the reasons that I voted for Sarah. The Presidency is not, nor should it be, the province of some self-selected elite. We are not living in Plato’s Republic, wherein a power-hungry, “golden” caste inherits for itself the right to rule over all.
The second point is this: Palin’s resignation has its closest parallel in the acts of Cincinnatus. And that, by itself, recommends her to the highest Office in the land. It harkens back to the acts of George Washington, who refused to continue in office beyond the time deemed appropriate. Palin has my admiration and respect, and this latest action on her part merely cements my opinion of her.