There has been much speculation about Sarah Palin's decision to resign as governor of Alaska. Is she pregnant? Is there a scandal brewing? Has the proberbial kitchen finally gotten too hot for her?
Here is my theory, for what it's worth (which is probably not much, considering that I also predicted that McCain would pick Romney as his running mate and later, that McCain and Palin would win the election). I think that there is some truth to the "hot kitchen" theory. But I don't think the heat is getting to Palin as much as to her family. Sarah Palin has shown herself to be tough enough to handle whatever the media mudslingers throw at her. But she has also shown herself to be someone who champions family values. And how better to do that than to protect her own loved ones?
Mrs. Palin has had an incredible year. I think she is seriously considering a 2012 presidential run. If she decides to go for it, she will have to start the process next year. I think it is quite likely she is bowing out as governor now so that she can have a little time to devote to her family before stepping back in to the fray.
The Palin-haters are calling her a quitter and branding her as unreliable and fickle. I think this decision is just another sign of her integrity and her refusal to play politics as usual. I wish her the best and look forward to watching the Palin story play out.
6 comments:
I totally agree with you, Cheryl. I'm really hoping she makes a run for it as President :o)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
How can you call the the media mudslingers? She is the one who does the strange things. The media just reports them.
This is the second time she has quit a state job. I think that qualifies her as a quitter. I think she found out the State of Alaska actually wanted her to do her job.
Finally, I hope she isn't one of those family value Republicans, like lets say David Vitter, John Ensign, John Sanford, I think the list can go on and on. The only difference between the family value people and the rest is that they always want to tell people how to live their lives, but they don't apply the same rules to themselves.
Thanks for stopping by, Working Man. I'll respond to your comments as best I can.
When I say "media mudslinging" I am referring to things such as early reports that Palin's baby daughter was actually her grandchild; David Letterman's unconscionable joke; and the nonstop barrage of rumors and name-calling that came about in the presidential campaign. Palin hatred is rampant out there. A number of thinking liberals and feminists have acknowledged it. Here's just one site that explores and discounts a number of the rumors/lies that have circulated about Sarah Palin: http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/
Regarding the label "quitter": well, I suppose if you are defining the word as "one who quits" then I guess yes, she is a quitter. I would guess that we have all quitted various things in our lives, making us all quitters. But the point I was trying to make is that she is not a quitter in the sense of throwing in the towel/giving up without good reason. The word "quitter" usually refers to someone who quits lightly at the first sign of difficulty and who has such a history or pattern of quitting that nothing is ever completed or finished. I'm sure future opponents of Sarah Palin will grab at the two posts she resigned as evidence of her deserving the name "quitter", but in my opinion someone who has achieved what she has achieved is not a quitter. And someone who keeps a Down syndrome child that many would have aborted is not a quitter.
Your final comment about family values is beneath you, Family Man. I visited your blog and from my brief look around you seem to be a thoughtful person. The hypocrisy argument is an empty and tired one that really has no place in the world of ideas. Yes, we are all sinners. Sarah Palin is, I am, and I would wager that you are, too. If you were to line up a bunch of family values Republicans against a bunch of liberal, "tolerant" Democrats I'm sure you would find plenty of bad behavior to go around. But that's not the point. To assert that some behaviors are right and some are wrong does not mean that the one doing the asserting is therefore going to always behave rightly. But I would rather have leaders that subscribe to a moral code and fail than have leaders that say there is no morality because anything goes and we are each free to choose our own.
Working Man - "Finally, I hope she isn't one of those family value Republicans, like lets say David Vitter, John Ensign, John Sanford, I think the list can go on and on. The only difference between the family value people and the rest is that they always want to tell people how to live their lives, but they don't apply the same rules to themselves."
Both sides have people who don't live up to their stated ideals. How about those on the other side who spout about the duty to pay taxes? Seems the President had a hard time finding someone to nominate who was not delinquent.
It's going too far to blame an individual for the failings of others in their party. If you want to do that for both sides, I'll provide the list of tax cheats.
Thank you for the reply.
My only issue is about the hypocrisy. You will have to take my word for this, but I have never cheated on my wife. I still don't tell other people how to lead their lives. The thing that rubs me the wrong way about these people, and yes this does cross party lines, is most of these people are only using the family values argument as a political ploy. I do know there are some who actually walk the walk. More power to them, but I still don't need them to tell me how to live. I have a moral code, a pastor, and just plain common sense. What I want from my Senator, or President is someone who leads this country and its people to a better way of life for all.
"What I want from my Senator, or President is someone who leads this country and its people to a better way of life for all."
I completely agree, Working Man. And that is why I would gladly trade a President Obama for a President Clinton, notwithstanding President Clinton's known marital infidelity. Because for me, "family values" has not as much to do with a leader's personal behavior, although that is important to me insofar as it says something about the person's character, as it has to do with policies that uphold and support both families and invidividuals who are doing their best to care for themselves and their loved ones. And I think Barack Obama's policies are destroying the average family's ability to do that as well as the future that I had dreamed of for my children. He may be a wonderful and faithful husband and father, but that is immaterial when the things he is doing are eroding freedom to the point that I am afraid by the time my children are adults they won't recognize this country as the one they were born in. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, embraces the values that I embrace. That doesn't mean I am ready to say I want her to be the next president. But that is what I am getting at when I talk about family values. It's about freedom and responsibility, two things that Obama and the liberal Democrats don't seem to understand, or if they do, they don't value them. And I find that terrifying.
Post a Comment