So, why’d she do it?

July 4, 2009

I still don’t have a satisfying answer for why Governor Palin resigned, and Tito’s magic 8-ball is on the fritz, but I’ve read some interesting speculations this morning -some more believable than others- that I thought I’d pass along:

  • Max Blumenthal: Getting out ahead of a scandal? Reliant on rumors and unsourced rumors from “Alaska political circles” (Where she’s always had enemies), this is my candidate for “least credible.”
  • William Jacobson: It has always been about Trig. There’s no doubt that the Left’s obsession with her toddler has revealed something vile in our politics, and I wouldn’t blame a mother for saying “I’m taking your target away.”
  • Mark Steyn: An ordinary citizen cuts bait. The “I’ve had enough” reason. After what we’ve witnessed, I could believe that.

Both of the latter beg the question of “Why not finish her term and then retire,” while the first provides a possible answer, but one I hope is baseless.

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson says it’s not about why she did it, but what she does with her new free time:

In the long run, she can lecture, earn a good income through speaking, develop a coterie of advisers and supporters, take care of her family, not have the constant political warring on all flanks, and invest time in reflecting and studying issues, visit the country, meet leaders, etc. She’s not looking at 2012; but in eight years by 2016 she will be far more savvy, still young, and far more experienced. It matters not all that the Left writes her off as daffy, since they were going to do that whatever she did; the key is whether she convinces conservatives in eight year of travel and reflection that she’s a  charismatic Margaret Thatcher type heavyweight.

We’ll see. I’d love to see her come back refreshed and ready to run in 2016. I still think she offers what the country needs and that, more than any other likely candidate, she stands for the common person – the ordinary barbarian, as some put it. Some have compared her to Ronald Reagan, and Palin herself often quotes the late President, but I think the fairer comparison is to Harry Truman – not the Hollywood star, but the Missouri haberdasher: tough, scrappy, full of common sense. The Wise wrote off Truman in 1948, and we know how that turned out.

So, to answer the question in the subject line:

Sarah Palin shrugs during a campaign stop in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, on October 11.

It’s about the future, now.

LINKS: Sister Toldjah reflects on the morning after. Rich Noyes on 10 months of media scorn (via ST). Adam Brickley looks at internal Alaska politics and thinks she’s extended her influence. Slublog doesn’t believe she’ll be back and says our loss is her gain. On the other hand, Mark Levin thinks she’s running:


So, why’d she do it?

July 4, 2009

I still don't have a satisfying answer for why Governor Palin resigned, and Tito's magic 8-ball is on the fritz, but I've read some interesting speculations this morning -some more believable than others- that I thought I'd pass along:

  • Max Blumenthal: Getting out ahead of a scandal? Reliant on rumors and unsourced rumors from "Alaska political circles" (Where she's always had enemies), this is my candidate for "least credible."
  • William Jacobson: It has always been about Trig. There's no doubt that the Left's obsession with her toddler has revealed something vile in our politics, and I wouldn't blame a mother for saying "I'm taking your target away."
  • Mark Steyn: An ordinary citizen cuts bait. The "I've had enough" reason. After what we've witnessed, I could believe that.

Both of the latter beg the question of "Why not finish her term and then retire," while the first provides a possible answer, but one I hope is baseless.

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson says it's not about why she did it, but what she does with her new free time:

In the long run, she can lecture, earn a good income through speaking, develop a coterie of advisers and supporters, take care of her family, not have the constant political warring on all flanks, and invest time in reflecting and studying issues, visit the country, meet leaders, etc. She's not looking at 2012; but in eight years by 2016 she will be far more savvy, still young, and far more experienced. It matters not all that the Left writes her off as daffy, since they were going to do that whatever she did; the key is whether she convinces conservatives in eight year of travel and reflection that she's a  charismatic Margaret Thatcher type heavyweight.

We'll see. I'd love to see her come back refreshed and ready to run in 2016. I still think she offers what the country needs and that, more than any other likely candidate, she stands for the common person – the ordinary barbarian, as some put it. Some have compared her to Ronald Reagan, and Palin herself often quotes the late President, but I think the fairer comparison is to Harry Truman – not the Hollywood star, but the Missouri haberdasher: tough, scrappy, full of common sense. The Wise wrote off Truman in 1948, and we know how that turned out.

So, to answer the question in the subject line:

Sarah Palin shrugs during a campaign stop in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, on October 11.

It's about the future, now.

LINKS: Sister Toldjah reflects on the morning after. Rich Noyes on 10 months of media scorn (via ST). Adam Brickley looks at internal Alaska politics and thinks she's extended her influence. Slublog doesn't believe she'll be back and says our loss is her gain. On the other hand, Mark Levin thinks she's running:


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,157 other followers