Sarah Palin Is Right About One Thing
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 4
Am I losing it, or does Sarah Palin have a point? I mean, when she says that if she'd remained in office, she wouldn't have accomplished anything because state business would have been tied up in the many ethical charges against her? That strikes me as a hard kernel truth in the middle of the sea of bullshit Palin is wading in (today, literally, by giving TV interviews while out catching fish). Palin is right that she became a different kind of politician when McCain has picked her as vice president. Maybe that's because she's run headlong into the embrace of celebrity, and she could soberly renounce national fame and fortune and return to just being Governor Palin if she tried. But could she, really, at this point? When Palin made her suprise announcement, ardent defender Bill Kristol asked, "What is she going to accomplish in the next year as governor?" That seemed to me snobbish scoffing at the day-to-day work of running a state. Now I'm starting to see the unvarnished point. Given what a target of controversy she's become, what legislative agenda could she push through? (Other than forcing out the state public health official who wanted to present evidence about how laws that require teenagers to get parental consent before an abortion are linked not to fewer abortions, but to later and riskier ones. More on that from Clara Jeffrey at Mother Jones.)
It's a funny sort of toppling: I resign because of the damage my detractors are doing to me, even though I did nothing wrong and I am still tough as nails. And the bit of honesty here gives the lie to what Palin keeps repeating about how resigning "isn't about retreating, it's about progressing." It's also entirely possible that the real reason she can't be an effective governor is that she did do something wrong. But whatever the cause, Palin is right that her term of office has turned into a circus. And that Alaska may well be better off without her.
Emily Bazelon is a founding editor of Double X, and a writer and editor at Slate.
Comments
Emily has a Point, but...
By: Shasta | Wed, 07/08/2009 - 12:25
People continue to ask the wrong question. The question should be why, in spite of all of her shortcomings, does she engender such loyalty in folks.
The Michael Jackson memorial highlights this perfectly. She is a celebrity, not a politician or someone who can "effect change." We love celebrity. It is easy, like fast-food. It provides a distraction from the the realities of unemployment, health care or global warming, which are difficult.
Sarah Palin knows exactly who she is and what she's doing. She wants to be a celebrity and is her own publicist, and is brilliant at it. In Alaska the easiest way to achieve notoreity was through public service. Real issues require real work, so she's on to the next thing: a book, FoxNews, an interview in hip waders.
Whatever. I've had my fill of celebrity. I'm willing to forgo the sexy charisma for someone who actually knows how to deal with the very real and serious problems facing our country.
Have you read the complaints list?
By: tonydavisnelson | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 17:17
>>About the 150k spent on her wardrobe (Good thing she didn't spend 800k going to Hawaii!!!)
>>About giving an interview about the VP campaign in her state office.
>>For campaigning for Saxby Chambliss
>>For wearing and artic cat logo
And the winner is:
>>For using the proceeds of a trust established to pay for her ethics complaint defense to.....pay for her ethics complaint defense.
Sometimes it's better to pick up your marbles instead of continuing to play a crooked game.
Effective Governor?
By: lawyer-mom | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 17:14
Another reason why Sarah Palin cannot be an effective governor is that she is not qualified fot the position she's in. Nor does she listen to anyone who disagrees with her. This, obviously, is not new, but perhaps Alaskans were served well by her VP nomination, because the nomination effectively shorterned her term in office.
compared to -?
By: Vville222 | Tue, 07/07/2009 - 16:19
Not knowing anything about Alaskan politics, I can't answer the question "What is she going to accomplish in the next year as governor?" but it raises another question in my mind: Did she really have a legislative agenda of any note? In other words, she can reasonably claim that the political climate in Alaska is harsh, but you might think that if she had a real plan for governing it would a) provide a focus for her office, and b)take some wind out of the "frivolous" complaints lodged against her.