By Marc Korman.
I usually do not write about national politics unless there is a Maryland tie in, but since Adam posted Sarah Palin’s resignation speech and I am so confused by her strategy, I could not resist.
If the plan is to run for president in 2012, declining to run for reelection certainly has precedence. Mitt Romney chose to stand down in 2006 despite having only served one term as governor of Massachusetts partly because he knew a reelection campaign would require him to take positions far to the left of the 2008 Republican primary electorate and could easily end in defeat (think Bob Ehrlich).
Even resigning from a position to run is not new. Bob Dole left his Majority Leadership position and the Senate in the summer of 1996 to focus on his bid for the presidency. Of course, by that point he was already guaranteed the Republican nomination.
But resigning before her first gubernatorial term is complete to focus on an election three years away is an interesting strategy. The best explanation I have heard is she wants to make some money in the private sector, which she can do through book deals, speeches, and slots on corporate boards much easier outside of the governor’s office. She can combine that and campaigning between now and the midterms in November 2010 and then switch over to a full campaign effort leading up to the 2012 election.
Perhaps Palin has also looked at some of her potential competitors and found that being in office is not so important. Mitt Romney will have been out of office for over five years by the time the 2012 Republican primary season heats up. Newt Gingrich resigned from the House of Representatives shortly after he won reelection in 1998, giving up his role as Speaker in the process. Perhaps Palin plans to use him as a shield.
But political strategy aside, Palin’s decision and her comments are just plain strange. One particular section jumped out at me:And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it". I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? [sic] That's not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old "politics as usual." I promised that four years ago - and I meant it.
As best as I can tell, Palin is essentially saying that governing is about elections. If she is not going to run, she cannot govern. I suppose the good news is if she were to win two White House terms, she would step aside in January of 2017 since as a lame duck she would have no purpose.
Maybe more to the story will come out. There could be a scandal. Perhaps she is planning to challenge Lisa Murkowski for the US Senate or Michael Steele for the RNC Chairmanship. Maybe she has plans for a think tank. But whatever her plan, resigning before her term is complete strikes me as strange. There may be no single action that disqualifies someone from the presidency, but turning your back on those you represent is probably pretty close.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
What Is The Strategy?
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Palin Resignation Video
What would Maryland conservatives say if Martin O'Malley quit during the middle of a recession?
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Friday, November 07, 2008
Sarah Palin Does Not Know Africa is a Continent
She also cannot name the countries that participate in NAFTA!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Ted Stevens Endorses Sarah Palin
Isn't it nice to remember the good times in life? When everybody was happy and no one was going to jail?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Palin Swift-Boats Obama
This is the first step in what the Washington Post describes as a "fiercer strategy" by the McCain campaign against Barack Obama. Even the Associated Press says this tactic carries a "racial tinge." Apparently, Senator McCain and Governor Palin have nothing left to say to the American people other than these kinds of statements. Are we going to let them get away with it?
Update: Red Maryland blogger Mark Newgent says that the Obama-Ayers relationship is "a legitimate concern." It's going to be a wild month, people!
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Pom-Poms for Palin
By Sharon Dooley.
Sarah Palin was perky and folksy during the VP debate and, as she has said: “comin’ at cha!” Maybe the gray heads running McCain’s campaign found that substantive, but I was unconvinced. She smiled, she looked professional – and she winked at us – more than once!! Can anyone imagine the uproar if Hillary Clinton ever winked at her audience during one of those debates with all of the guys running for the Democratic nomination? Would any Marylander dream of our intrepid ‘Senator Barb’ ever looking as if she was thinking about a wink?
The debate was more a series of separate questions and answers than any repartee between candidates or the moderator. They did not really communicate, although they did posture. Biden also overcame diminished expectations and was more concise and engaged than he has been in previous debates. He appeared to be addressing the questions asked, in most cases, and pretty much ignored the chipper chatter coming from his opponent. He did not come across as heavy-handed or sexist, both characteristics attributed to him in anticipation of this event. He pretty much kept to his script about looking for the differences between Obama and McCain and creating the parallels. He made some precise statements regarding health care and the office of the Vice-Presidency. He went back and forth about the Middle East and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But to me – sounding almost boring here reinforces a feeling of stability.
Let’s get serious – can anyone believe that a candidate who could not answer questions about nuclear nations needs to be close to absolute power? Her support for following in Cheney’s path and claiming additional fiat for the reach of the vice – presidential office is alarming to anyone who has watched the secretive veep and his forays toward a subterranean branch of the federal government outside the executive confines. Does any voter – aside from Palin support this hidden and expanded role for a VP?
Disdaining the agreed upon rules of debate and following her own script – even reading her lines at several points – Ms. Palin announced her plan to answer the questions she wanted to explore, not the ones which were actually asked and did so. Gwen Ifill, whom the McCain operatives hoped to replace or intimidate with charges of favoritism, did not repeat the questions or chide Ms. Palin in any attempts to get her to answer the questions asked, which might have returned some sense of reality to the stage. Returning to energy at almost every turn with colloquialisms flooding every sentence, she provided little light on most questions. In her many repetitions of comments already made on the campaign trail and proven to be inaccurate such as Obama’s stance on taxes and budget support for the troops, Sarah charged ahead disregarding facts in play. Her tentative use of the term mandate appeared to indicate that she was uncertain what the term actually meant.
Did she do better than her recent interviews with Katie Couric? Certainly. Can Katie ever be fairly charged with gotcha journalism? I think not; but here again the press was attacked for asking questions she should have known how to answer. (I do assume that most of us could easily recall the newspapers and magazines we usually read.) Is the national stage a hard and tough one? Of course. When anyone steps on up and embraces the role – that choice has been accepted. That process is part of our democracy and it should be defended. But Palin’s handlers couldn’t or wouldn’t let her hold a press conference. If she is not ready for prime time interviews, why select her in the first place? How has wrapping the candidate up and making her unreachable added any transparency to this campaign? Is she better or worse than she appears? We may never know.
Soon, the debates will all be over – the yard signs will be put away, the electorate will have spoken. Will the voters “shout out for substance” or bow to the soap opera power of the gal with the pom-poms and the quirky nature? Will we vote for the campaign promising hope and change or the one that claims straight talk?
Friday, September 05, 2008
Palin Portrait from Wasilla
This email posted on Crosscut Seattle provides a view of Sarah Palin's career in Wasilla, Alaska and more information on the potential veep than has probably appeared in the papers since McCain surprised the nation with his choice.
Palin's fiscal approach as mayor will sound eerily familiar to those who have followed the Bush Administration's fiscal policy:Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative." During her six years as mayor, she increased general government expenditures by more than 33 percent. During those same six years, the amount of taxes collected by the city increased by 38 percent. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax, which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefitted large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.
I wonder if Red Maryland, which has been so vocally critical of Gov. O'Malley's tax record, thinks highly of this approach. I wouldn't be so fast to give Palin kudos for balancing Alaska's budget as the State essentially floats on an oil largess unavailable to other states.
The huge increases in tax revenue during her mayoral administration weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list, though — borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt but left it with indebtedness of more than $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? Or a new library? No. $1 million for a park. $15 million-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex, which she rushed through, on a piece of property that the city didn't even have clear title to. That was still in litigation seven years later — to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5 million for road projects that could have been done in five to seven years without any borrowing.
The writer on Crosscut also provides a critique of Palin's claim to hate earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere, as well as more information on past ethics problems facing the Republican veep nominee. Read the whole thing for yourself.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The Sarah Palin Church Videos
Is this the person you want to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency? A person who claims that the Iraq War is a "task that is from God" and that a natural gas pipeline is "God's will?"
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Maryland Right-Wing Hypocrisy Never Ends
It was bad enough that Maryland conservatives reacted with rank hypocrisy to the recent state police spying scandal. But they have topped that performance with their praise of Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
The chief line of attack by national Republicans against Senator Obama is that he is inexperienced and not ready to be President. Maryland Republican Party Chairman Jim Pelura adopted this argument in a press release during the Democratic convention. Pelura commented, “...The Democrats’ cure for what they say ails our country is to elect a man that has served less than one term in the U.S. Senate…” and followed with, “Throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has shown the kind of weak judgment Americans cannot afford in our next commander-in-chief.” But in assessing Sarah Palin, Pelura gushes, “As the head of Alaska 's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the sacrifice of our troops and their families.” So according to Maryland Republicans, Senator Obama, with nearly four years experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is not ready for the White House. But Governor Palin, with two years experience supervising Alaska’s National Guard, is ready. Such are the arguments we would expect from paid political hacks.
And so I turned to the Free State’s conservative blogosphere and its leader, Brian Griffiths. Agree with him or not, Griffiths has a history of going after fellow Republicans, whether skewering Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold or hounding former Maryland GOP Executive Director John Flynn out of his job. But even Griffiths fails the consistency test when it comes to Governor Palin.
After Senator Obama picked Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, Griffiths wrote: Obama selected Biden from a position of weakness, not a position of strength. Biden was picked to overcome Obama's noticeable shortcomings in experience and knowledge. And Biden was selected in an effort to stop the bleeding. Somebody in Obama's campaign thinks that the selection of Biden is going to shore up concerns with Obama's inexperience, and that the selection is going to reinforce the ticket's foreign policy credentials. Problem is, the selection only accentuates the weaknesses the American people already knows Barack Obama has.
And after Senator McCain picked Governor Palin as his running mate, Griffiths wrote:
Sarah Palin has more experience in government than Barack Obama does. She has no less foreign policy experience than he does. And, unlike Obama, she is the # 2 on the ticket. Obama's glaring lack of experience to be President still shines through. Friends, this is what we have been waiting for. This is what we have wanted to see all along.
The contention that Senator Obama and Governor Palin have similar levels of foreign policy experience is factually wrong. Senator Obama has worked with respected Republican Senator Dick Lugar to reduce conventional weapons stockpiles, sponsored a measure to encourage public pension funds to divest from companies connected to Iran and co-sponsored the 2006 Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act along with Senator McCain. This does not match Senator Biden’s record, but it is hardly equivalent to the “experience” of Governor Palin.
The point of this post is not to criticize the selection of Governor Palin as a Vice-Presidential nominee. Jackie Lichter handled that very well. Rather, the Orwellian reasoning of Maryland conservatives is the real issue here. According to them, Senator McCain is superior to Senator Obama because of his vast experience. But that is suddenly irrelevant in evaluating Senator McCain’s choice for Vice-President, a novice whose primary role in public service has been as mayor of a town less than half the size of Takoma Park. I am always amazed by people who believe totally opposite things at the same time with equal fervor. Such is now the case for many Maryland conservatives.
Barry Rascovar has an excellent piece in the Gazette detailing the irrelevance of the Maryland Republican Party. If Free State conservatives would like to turn around their misfortune, here’s a bit of advice: stop the hypocrisy. Maybe then your opinions will be respected by the independents and moderate Democrats you need to win elections.
Update: Brian Griffiths responds here. Among other things, he says:The argument that Obama is more prepared than Governor Palin to be President is absurd. And the idea that the right, particularly me, is being hypocritical on the Biden/Palin issue is equally absurd. Senator McCain, in selecting Governor Palin, selected somebody who will be a partner in change and in reform. Somebody who can lead on day one, without the training wheels.
Alaska state legislator Mike Doogan, who has had much more contact with Governor Palin than has Brian Griffiths, begs to differ with that last statement.
Professor Richard Vatz of Towson University stands out as the only honest conservative on Red Maryland, deploring inexperience on both sides. Whether you agree with Professor Vatz or not, he is at least consistent.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Guest Blog: Jackie Lichter on Sarah Palin
By Jackie Lichter.
So, it’s been four days since McCain announced his VP choice – Governor Sarah Palin – and I’ve had some time to think about what this choice means to me as a politically active woman. I was struck by what McCain’s pick means in terms of the glass ceiling and the GOP ticket – it’s an important precedent. That said, I have some grave concerns about Palin’s record and lack thereof, and I believe these concerns will be echoed in the minds of other women voters. Let’s examine why...
First, Palin is staunchly anti-abortion. She believes that abortion should be illegal unless a woman’s life is considered to be at risk. This includes instances of rape or incest [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor’s Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.] She’s a member of Feminists for Life, a group whose website brandishes the slogan, “Refuse to Choose – Women Deserve Better than Abortion” and uses traditional scare tactics to frighten women away from abortion services, like a section titled “We Remember” that “commemorate[s] the lives of women lost to legal abortion.”
Governor Palin also believes that Sex Ed in schools should be confined to “abstinence only.” Yet, according to recent reports, her 17-year-old daughter is 5 months pregnant. You can’t help but be struck by the hypocrisy: she’s not able to keep her own child on the straight and narrow abstinence-only path, yet she thinks everyone else’s kids should be held to it and not be taught about how to stay healthy and safe if they stray?
So, will women and other rational voters be able to look past all this? I don’t think so. Women are not going to vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. One of the first factors women look at is a candidate’s position on choice. NARAL recently published a study that shows an anti-abortion candidate will draw pro-choice Republican and Independent women to Obama. I believe McCain will lose more pro-choice Republican and Independent women that will reject the now firmly anti-choice GOP ticket than he’ll pick up staunch conservatives who favor Palin’s political views.
Besides her position on choice and Sex Ed, Palin just doesn’t seem to be an experienced leader. She has been Governor for less than two years, and while her record on reform is decent, I’m not confident in her ability to lead. Take the following radio interview Palin did with “The Bob and Mark Show” which an op-ed in the Anchorage Daily news called “plain and simple one of the most unprofessional, childish and inexcusable performances I’ve ever seen from a politician.” The radio host called the State Senate President “a cancer and a b****.” He also referred to her being overweight. The Senate President happens to be a cancer survivor – apparently a well-known fact in Alaska (one Palin clearly knew). You can listen to the clip yourself here but be prepared to be appalled. Not only does Palin not condemn the comments, she laughs – actually she giggles, which I think is worse. Now, you could forgive the laughter, but at the end of the interview she goes so far as to tell the radio hosts that she’d be honored to host them at the State Capital anytime. Any leader, let alone a governor, should have the decency to stand up for others when they are being viciously attacked. When that leader is a woman and she’s condoning another woman being called a b****, it’s just disgusting.
Finally, you would imagine that a Vice Presidential candidate should have some understanding of history. When asked if she was offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, she responded, “Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.” Now, it’s possible that she actually intended to name President Eisenhower as a “founding father” but I would say, generally speaking, “our founding fathers” refers to those political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence. I mean, it must be the case if this is the first hit when googling “Founding Fathers.”
Bottom line is this: Naming an anti-abortion, inexperienced, and historically- challenged woman as McCain’s VP does nothing to change my mind in who I’m supporting for President.
Jackie Lichter has lived in Montgomery County for 28 years. She is a former teacher in MCPS and is currently the Political Director for SEIU Local 500. She serves on the Executive Board for Committee for Montgomery, is the Vice President for the Maryland Legislative Agenda for Women, and is chair of the Policy and Legislation Committee for the Montgomery County Commission for Women. The views posted above are completely independent and not reflective of any of the organizations to which she belongs.
