During July, and October, I’ll be working the weekends, which means I’ll be off on Thursdays and Fridays, unless I sneak in a day off somewhere else. Postings here might be kind of light in the interim. Or, you might come back Monday and find your inbox full of stuff I’ve posted over the weekend. It depends on how busy the naughty people are.
Last week’s post about Sarah Palin generated a lot of comments. That surprised me, a little. I wasn’t going for the hits, but the hits came. If only I could have found a way to write about Michael Jackson. I thought the memorial service was really well done. Ka-ching!
Back to Sarah Palin, I was referred to a point and a counterpoint on the issue of whether she was treated fairly by the media. The point that she wasn’t was offered by Carl Cannon at Politics Daily.
Sarah Palin’s rambling abdication speech was hard to follow, let alone acclaim, but in her abrupt announcement that she is withdrawing from public office, the Republican governor of Alaska was hardly the only player in a 10-month drama who demonstrated a lack of self-awareness. Democrats scoffed at her “politics of personal destruction” line, but it’s a maxim they originally popularized, and one they will undoubtedly trot out again the next time it happens to one of their own. But the true villains in this political morality play may have been the press.
Jeffrey Weiss offers a counterpoint at the same site.
In baseball, a new player’s batting average will shift with every at-bat. For someone who has been in the lineup for a while, not so much. So too in the campaign: When Biden repeatedly misspoke — as had been widely predicted — the media and the public had a long context in which to place the bobbles of the day. With Palin, what she said was pretty much what we — journalists and voters — had to go on.
Palin was treated unfairly. It was far worse than the treatment of any other politician and their family that I have ever seen.
Sadly, it is symbolic of the tragic polarization that is going on across America and spilling into the mainstream press. First in trickles. Now in daily gushes. I am seriously worried that if it continues, we are headed towards civil unrest and violence. Candidates, politicians, and citizens are no longer free to exchange ideas honestly and agree to disagree. The mentality of “if you aren’t with us, you are against us” is killing this great nation! And it isn’t just happening from the left. I say emphatically that it is just as bad from the right.
For example, when the news broke about Palin resigning, I was shocked. I’d created an account at http://www.teamsarah.org during the fall campaign, so decided to drop in there and find out if other Palin supporters were concerned about this. For even asking the question and posing the discussion (respectfully and within the site’s rules), I was called a ‘hatemonger’, ‘anti-Sarah’, a troll, and a few other choice names and then was uncerimoniously banned and my account suspended. Me! You folks know me. I’ve been a Palin supporter since the night before McCain announced his choice for a running mate. How dare I raise the possibility, amongst those that I thought were like minded on most other issues, that one of our own could have made a big mistake. Oh the humanity that I would do such a thing! (sigh)
If you dare speak your mind, even respectfully and with dignity (Carrie Prejean comes to mind), then vitriole and hatemongering spews forth from the extremists and flows to the mainstream media who cover the vitriolic response as “news” and then it becomes the story instead of real news. The press hands the bully pulpit to the extremists.
Ironically, I place a lot of the ‘blame’ for this right (no pun intended) at the feet of some within my own party. Limbaugh built a name for himself with his own form of vitriole and the mainstream media gave him the pulpit. From his attack on Clinton’s daughter (which paled in comparison to Letterman’s recently said about Palin’s daughter, btw) to his other absurdities, he didn’t respect the boundaries of human decency.
Letterman should have been fired. But, instead, Palin is demonized for any comment she made in response to the matter.
I want the press to ask tough questions of our politicians and wanna be politicians. But I want those questions focused clearly on real and legitimate issues. I don’t really care that Palin’s suits came from Nordstroms or what Michele Obama’s shoes (while serving soup to the homeless) cost. I care about the policies that our lawmakers will bring to the table on issues of great importance to us all!
Can the media get back to that???? Please??? Seems to me that the mainstream media has hired more pundits than reporters in recent years. I long for the day when media outlets had separate reporters and editorial staff. (No offense, Steve) I also long for a return to the day when the media reported the news and left the interpretation of it up to the public.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Kathryn, Do you think it is an accident that Letterman’s comments earning media attention and huge ratings happened during the week of the Tonight Show changeover from Leno to O’Brien?
Letterman is a bright boy.
The media reflects ‘us’ and our viewing tastes…or so it seems. The recent sad death of Michael Jackson and media coverage worked itself into a public frenzy. It gobbled mainstream television channels until even Fox covered the actual funeral.
Had the public changed channels, the amazing coverage would not have happened.
When the public raises up and says, ENOUGH, things will change but don’t hold your breath.
The media reflects us. As do the politicians.
Not necessarily a pretty picture.
Sharon O’Hara
The right needs to learn to fight. The left plays the dirty game.
http://animal-farm.us/obama/dirty-game-517
I know someone who was a Hillary Clinton supporter, but when it became clear Obama was going to win, he tried to make the case on the Clinton site that it was time to throw support to the nominee. This was after Clinton conceded.
He was banned from the site.
Foxwood,
There is plenty of blame to go around for who fights dirty.
The link you provided only speaks volumes to my comments about the polarization that is substituting for political dialog in America. Solutions to our problems are not going to be forthcoming from the two poles. I am not willing to compromise my values of human decency and honor to win a war of words alone while public education continues to suffer, our economy is in shambles, and we have elected leadership following the herd instead of leading with integrity and example because they think that only the poles vote and contribute to campaigns anymore! Let us show them that acting honorably will be rewarded with election and re-election! Let us set the tone for them and reset the tone in Washington DC, in Olympia, and in Kitsap County!
I firmly believe that there are good Republicans and Democrats out there that can work together for the common good. I will continue to support them and encourage them to run for office, regardless of party. They will save the world.
The verbal or editorial lynching of an adversary is just as wrong in the media and on the internet as it was to put “whites only” signs on bathrooms and water coolers. Let us speak to issues. Let us speak with respect to one another. Let us begin to extend a hand of fellowship instead of a slap in the face. I hope I am not alone. Sometimes I wonder. But I am willing to stand alone, if necessary. It has been my experience that when one stands up it gives others the courage to do the same.
Let us lead by the highest example instead of the lowest common denominator. When you set the expectation high, people step up. When you set it low, people adapt to that too. As for me and my house, we will take the high road.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
On a local level, during the last election a friend told me she called and emailed different members of a party asking how to donate to one specific party candidate.
One person said his wife wasn’t home, got my friend’s phone number and said his wife would call.
Didn’t happen…nor did emails to party members get a reaction.
Sharon O’Hara
Thanks for the words, Kathryn.
Isn’t that what Sarah Palin is doing, standing up against the media bashing and unfair treatment? There used to be a country song, “Take this job and …”
As for the Ivy league educated political pundits, journalists, and analysts. Send them and their Louis Vuitton and Kenneth Cole bags out to Little Diomede Island for about 6 months. They’ll be able to look out their kitchen windows and see Russia.
And when they come back, if they come back, they probably won’t be such insufferable little bores.
Oh, no, Karen. The “Louis Vuitton and Kenneth Cole bags’ are useful and without predigest.
Present company excluded, Mr. Gardner.
By the way, her replacement was educating locally. Pacific Lutheran undergrad, University of Puget Sound Law School. I wonder if that will meet East Coast standards or if people will go back to not caring about Alaska?
Kathryn,
“The mentality of ‘if you aren’t with us, you are against us’ is killing this great nation!”
Well said. That attitude is a perfect description of how zealots (of BOTH end of the political spectrum) have come to dominate our political discourse.
Zealots see the world in black and white. In the 60’s, we had leftist zealots like Eldridge Cleaver, who famously said “you’re either part of the solution or part of the problem”. Today, we have rightist zealots who say that “you either side with us or with the terrorists”. The point is that BOTH sets of zealots share the attitude you described. To them, there is no middle ground.
That statement applies to the press in this country as well. Since the free press in this country is supposed to be neutral, it doesn’t side with the zealots, so both ends of the political spectrum view it as the enemy. Leftist zealots claim that there’s conservative bias, and rightist zealots claim that there’s liberal bias. The fact that both ends of the spectrum are complaining about the press tells me two things:
1. As one of my journalism professors told me years ago, “when you’re getting complaints from both ends of the political spectrum that you’re biased, it’s a pretty good clue that you’re doing a good job of remaining neutral.” I think that professor’s remarks are still timely today.
2. A more subtle point is that the zealots aren’t really complaining that the press is biased AGAINST them. They’re really complaining that the press isn’t biased FOR them. I think that zealots LIKE bias. They WANT bias. They just want to make sure that it’s THEIR bias. And BOTH sides are trying to intimidate the press into being biased for them.
I don’t think that the press treated Sarah Palin any more unfairly than they treated Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain. The only difference is that Palin tried to make the press the issue.
When asked about Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s complaints about the press, Palin said “I think she [Clinton] does herself a disservice to even mention it. You gotta to plow through that. You have to know what you’re getting into, which, I say this with all due respect to Hillary Clinton …, but when I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, ‘man that doesn’t do us any good’ — women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country.”
It looks to me like Palin should have taken her own advice.
Elliott, I didn’t see her complaining a great deal, she just quit.
Have you ever noticed that women hem and haw and ramble when they are loathe to say what they really think? Watch what people do, not what they say. Actions speak louder than words.
“Letterman should have been fired. But, instead, Palin is demonized for any comment she made in response to the matter.”
Actually, that’s not the case. Palin was praised for her defense of young women and girls by people on both sides of the aisle.
Letterman apologized profusely. He acknowledged that his words were sexist. At first he made jokes about it all, but then he humbly apologized and said that his jokes were in poor taste.
I trust that Palin is doing what is right for her family at this time. I would rather see her have the chance to take care of her family and not be so roundly scrutinized. She has a daughter with a young baby, a son in Iraq (I believe), a baby with developmental delays and two other young daughters who need their mother. That is certainly enough for any woman to care for. So, leave her be.
Karen,
Here’s what she said about the press the day after her announcement:
Palin has an op-ed piece in (gasp) The Washington Post today. It appears that she uses the Washington media as a convenient whipping boy, except when she wants them to further her polical career.
Elliott, your choice of words is eerie, I was going to suggest you find a new whipping boy. Great minds…
Did you read the New York Times piece? Her hair is falling out. According to her hairdresser.
It’s enough now. She’s a private citizen. For some reason, it’s slander and libel when it’s about private citizens and anything goes when it’s said about people in public office or those seeking public office.
Let’s move on.
Karen,
The same legal standards for libel/slander exist for both private citizens and public figures. I think you’re confusing libel/slander with privacy.
But that distinction is meaningless, anyway. As long as Palin continues to put herself in the public eye (as she did today), she will remain a public figure.
Just a point of order. Palin is still the governor of Alaska. Parnell won’t be sworn in until July 25th.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/03/palin/index.html
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Sorry, I meant that to be July 26th.
Indeed, let’s rid ourselves of the toxic environment whilst getting in a classist dig against the Ivy League Establishment.
And the band played on…
Elliott, I’m aware of the distinction, why do we observe one and not the other?
RV, I certainly don’t consider wet behind the ears political pundits and reporters “Establishment”, do you? Reporters and pundits that have probably never been outside Cambridge. My suggestion was a good one. Ivy League education or not, they seem woefully undereducated to me. Don’t they cover Alaska geography at Hawvawd? When they give respect, they’ll get it.
I’m not the one that that made the plea for ridding ourselves of the toxic environment. Kathryn did.
I don’t engage in it, I rarely post, I don’t consider myself a Democrat or a Republican, so I would hardly have the need to make a plea for bipartisan debate, now would I?
Look around. You’re in the Pacific northwest. I think we have our own standards.
I don’t care if the ideologues spend the rest of their lives debating the same, tired arguments and stereotypes. I log on to see if there’s anything new or interesting or profound being discussed.
I feel compelled to stick up for Sarah Palin. At times. Like when she says she’s had enough. It’s the human thing to do. Being respectful of her politics, President Obama’s politics, Secretary of State Clinton’s politics. Isn’t that role-modeling what Kathryn firmly believes needs to happen for our country to move forward?
And when the punk reporters and pundits stop acting like punks, I’ll quit making fun of their pedigree.
Karen,
“why do we observe one [libel] and not the other [privacy]?”
That’s a VERY good question. My personal opinion is that it changed when the news organizations started viewing their themselves more as profit centers than as a public service.
When your primary objective is to make a profit instead of informing the public, what constitutes “news” changes from what’s important to what the public will buy. I’m old enough to remember Huntley and Brinkley, Walter Cronkite, and (barely) Edward R. Murrow. When folks like that were doing the news, there wouldn’t be a mention of Michael Jackson, except briefly. But now we get him 24 by 7. Because that’s what the public wants, and that’s what sells advertisements, and that’s what makes a profit.
There’s always been an appetite for scandal. Scandal sells ads. Scandal sells newspapers. And as long as scandal remains profitable, reporters will continue to look for it – even if that means more and more reporting on the heretofore private lives of public figures. And that potential for profit has led to a breakdown in the distinction beteen “celebrities” and political figures.
When Kennedy was president, his extra-marital affairs were apparently an open secret among the White House press. They didn’t report on them because (as I understand it) they didn’t see how that part of his life affected his decision-making as President. But how things have changed. Less than fifty years later, we have one political party trying to remove a sitting President from office for something equally irrelevant to his decision-making as President.
So reporting on politicians’ personal lives is apparently now an accepted practice. I don’t particularly like it, but it’s not about to change. The press didn’t treat Sarah Palin any worse than they treated Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Michael Jackson. They did what they did to be profitable.
Did Sarah Palin lie under oath or did I miss that part of the news in the past year?
Clinton’s personal life was just that and frankly, it wouldn’t have bothered me except for three elements to that ‘story’ that you conveniently overlook, Elliott. First is the perjury (for which he was disbarred for 5 years). Second was lying to the American people about it (“I did not have….”). The third was his complete lack of good judgment in having a relationship with a subordinate, some would say vulnerable and easily swayed, 22 year old White House intern.
Kennedy’s affair with Monroe or anyone else had little to do with how he served as President. Clinton’s affair(s) did because he lied under oath, he lied to the American people, and he exercised judgment that would get him fired at any subordinate level of government.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Kathryn,
What Clinton did was wrong and I’m not about to defend him. But I think the important question is why taxpayer money was being spent investigating his sex life in the first place.
By the way, that “vulnerable and easily swayed, 22 year old White House intern” was, according to her own account, the one who instigated the relationship.
I can’t disagree with anything you are saying, Elliott, except to add that perhaps today’s press creates scandal.
Have a great week.
Duck and weave, Elliott. Starr was in the course of another investigation and information was brought to him that another crime was committed. He had an obligation to the law when information was brought to him that the President had lied under oath (which was directly relevent to the credibility of Clinton statements regarding Whitewater). Further, Clinton was being sued civilly, by Paula Jones.
I find your last comment to be scary. Just because a 22 year old, with life experience next to nil, pursues her boss (who happened to be the most powerful man in the world at the time) doesn’t negate her boss’s responsibility to exercise good judgment and executive restraint. In my opinion, it was the epitome of abuse of power and the epitomy of arrogance and disrespect for his oath of office to lie to the American people when confronted with the truth.
Now, getting back to the topic at hand, when I was a kid the stories of who was sleeping with who were saved for the National Inquirer.
What happened to the mainstream media pursuing solid investigative reporting on voter fraud, corruption in government, and balanced reporting of environmental issues? Used to be that those were the focus of ABC, NBC, and CBS. What happened?
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Karen, without knowing the sensibilities and capabilities of those in question, how one views them is essentially a punch line. Those who attend these schools do so from around the country and world, and have lifestyles which typically lend themselves to international travel and exposure. Whether or not one is Ivy un/educated isn’t the point anyhow.
You thanked Kathryn for her words regarding toxicity at the political level and beyond, presumably because you found value in them – particularly after declaring you don’t engage in it. Ideologues with tired arguments and stereotypes when others do it, but interesting and profound when you indulge?
The value of cooperative and informed debate doesn’t reside behind a D or R, just as being in this region has no automatic influence on individual – versus stereotyped – standards. My brain travels with me, be it the Pacific Northwest or Russia, and responding to punks like a punk merely creates more punks.
Regarding Palin, I don’t agree with those who believe she must serve out her term as a testament to her professional ethic. If neither the press nor public is willing to rise above jejune politics for the betterment of society, it is commendable to refuse to indulge it. The issues are bigger than any one person or office, and if the benefit of the many (over the few) is being compromised, it is an act of integrity and courage to stand aside so government can get on with its business. Citizens are willing to allow resignations over scandal about an affair – which is really none of their business. One would think they’d care more about the ability of an elected to get the job done.
Elliott, spot on with your press-related comments.
Kathryn, I concur with the legally technical distinction you’re attempting to make regarding Clinton, but realistically he shouldn’t have been asked about his sexual activities. Both Lewinsky and Clinton were consenting adults, and if the ‘law is the law’, this also applies where adulthood is officially recognised.
If elected officials “stand aside so government can get on with its business”, then who is really deciding who is running that government?
My fear in what Palin has done is that it gives incentive and power to the extremists to think they can run off elected officials again… and again… and again.
My disappointment in Palin is because I had high hopes she would eventually seek the Presidency and stepping down did not help that potential. I still highly respect her. But I think her decision on this will be her achilles heel.
Clinton was asked about his sexual activities in context of another active lawsuit. In responding to that lawsuit, he had an obligation to tell the truth under oath. Had Clinton simply told the truth during the Jones deposition, Kenneth Starr would have had no reason to pursue the credibility issue and Whitewater would likely have fizzled for lack of evidence (as it eventually did… if I recall correctly) and the Clinton/Lewinski affair would have been a matter of 15 minutes of fame and embarassment. Instead, it became the near undoing of a President and cost him more dearly than it otherwise would have.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
RV, I thanked Kathryn for her words before I declared I don’t engage in partisan debate. I’m hardly contradicting myself, I would engage if I thought the posters used logic rather than party politics to form their opinions and state their case. Obviously, both sides have some good ideas. And I would probably weigh in more ofter if not for the personal attacks.
It’s your opinion that I responded like a punk. It’s my opinion that I’m rising above jejune politics by calling the DC political press, who seem to have lost their way, on their behavior. Seriously, when was the last time a Washington insider was elected President?
What did your original post “.. and the band played on..” add to the discussion? Were you looking for an argument? Because you’re not going to find it here. Go bait someone else.
Kathryn,
I had hoped to avoid partisan bickering in this thread. As I said before, I’m not defending Clinton. What he did (both in having the affair and in lying about it) was inexcusable.
Q. How many tax dollars were spent by special prosecutors investigating the Clintons?
A. Over $40 million, not including two separate Whitewater investigations conducted by the Republican-led Senate and House Banking Committees.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/01/starr.costs/
Q. After all that time, money, and effort, what was the most serious thing they found?
A. That Bill Clinton lied under oath.
Q. What did Bill Clinton lie under oath about?
A. His sex life.
I think in retrospect, everyone can agree, we should have been spending as much time, money, and effort identifying and tracking Al-Queda as we were spending investigating President Clinton.
Anyone that can’t or won’t admit that is truly an ideologue.
Karen,
I fervently hope we can all agree about that!
So, why weren’t we? Are you saying that Clinton was prevented from going after Al-Queda because of his domestic issues? I think not.
And perhaps that brings us back full circle to Palin. Is Palin really unable to do her job, as governor, because of the FOIA requests and ethics complaints (which have all been without merit for 15 of the 19 that have been investigated so far)? I don’t understand why she says she can’t, if she set her mind to it. Let the lawyers handle everything but her testimony and get on with the job of governing…
To allow highly partisan obstructionists to cause you to resign your elected office, when you have done nothing wrong… is giving in.
If that is ideaolgue, so be it.
When meritless accusations are brought forward, an elected official should consider that they have sworn an oath to the law and as long as they are abiding by the law, I think they have a moral and ethical obligation to the decision, by vote, of the people in who sits in the elected position.
Idealistic? Yeah. Impractical? I don’t think so. In fact, I think it is the most practical of things to expect from an elected official. Otherwise, tyrannts with pens gain power to oust honest and law abiding elected officials.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
I don’t believe Palin is a ‘quitter.’ Quite the opposite.
I do believe that when she said that the state of Alaska would do better at this time without her at the helm, I believe her.
We may never know the ‘whole story’ nor do I waste time and effort worrying about it.
It is naive to suppose we know the whole story but the voters who voted her in office trusted her judgment and nothing she has done has given reason to stop trusting her judgment.
Her obligation as governor is Alaska…and I applaud her ability to ignore the folks who believe she should stay in her post – no matter how detrimental it is for the state. Let her be the judge, not us.
For the people who voted her in office, let them trust her judgment now…nothing has changed.
Sharon O’Hara
If elected officials “stand aside so government can get on with its business”, then who is really deciding who is running that government?
The same people who decide when a resignation occurs because of an affair. And just as they all don’t face that situation en masse, they don’t face what Palin does, either. You already noted before that her treatment was some of the worst you’d seen, so we’re speaking of exceptions here – not the rule.
The thing about extremists is they don’t need incentive: they’ll do what they do because that’s who they are. Of course, there is some validity to the “we got her!” mentality, but it wasn’t simply extremists who piled on to Palin: it was those we consider your average everyday media. Besides, it isn’t as if she shuffled off to a cave to die. She’ll still be very much engaged with her party and presumably in government. It’s possible she may have the last laugh by taking advantage of a fickle public by running for office again someday. There are some politicians who die a quick and permanent death…and then there’s Ted Kennedy.
I am well aware of the Clinton lawsuit and its particulars, just as I am about oaths. Nonetheless, the sexual aspects of the case were inserted deliberately for a political edge. There were many avenues for pursuing the credibility issue, and I can assure you Starr knew that. He was well aware of how the Lewinsky affair would play.
Karen, when you thanked Kathryn isn’t relevant: it’s that you agree personal attacks aren’t useful but engage in what you profess to abhor. Certainly partisanship and stereotypes are off-putting when virulent or rationalised, but they don’t mutually exclude logical argument.
We all have our respective opinions. You believe you are ‘rising about jejune politics’ and adding value to discussion with stereotypical attacks against the DC political press, but my calling you out given your ‘higher ground’ posture is mislabeled as baiting or looking for an argument. In a discussion about ‘Press Piranhas and Horsepucky’, double standards of this nature are why Sharon O’Hara’s “they is us” point is spot on.
Kathryn,
Palin also had voters who wanted her to step down. Further, multiple investigations are not simply handled by one’s attorneys in a vacuum…not that this was the only issue. Even Clinton considered resignation given his frustration with how investigations impeded his ability to do his job. I can appreciate the belief that one should simply weather the storm and push forward, but true leadership is about much more than this. Does anyone really think an elected’s affair prevents him or her from doing their job? And yet, many nod their heads in vigourous ‘Amen!’ when such persons resign.
Our priorities could use some calibration.
It is relevant when talking to you, RV, because that was the point of your argument. “You thanked Kathryn for her words regarding toxicity at the political level and beyond, presumably because you found value in them – particularly after declaring you don’t engage in it.” These are your words, RV. I respond exactly and specifically to your words and then you tell me my response is irrelevant?
You know what I suspect your problem is, RV? You are a woman with some personal integrity and you can’t say the press treated Sarah Palin fairly. Your political affiliation won’t let you say they treated her unfairly. You’re left to create a buch of sidebar and drama.
Let’s get back on topic or I’m going to have to report you to the blog host. I want you quit. You’re not the hall monitor here and you’re not the resident sage. Get off my back. I’ve wasted a good half hour of my life responding to your nonsensical, circular arguments. Stop. Now.
“Your political affiliation won’t let you say they treated her unfairly.” I am surprised you feel that you can say this with conviction, Karen. You are making huge assumptions here.
Ms. Palin has had a particularly stressful year. Whether she created the situation, whether it was media driven, the result of a backlash by a the populace to the politics of George W. Bush/Dick Cheney/Karl Rove et al or whether it is because any of us would feel stressed caring for a special needs baby, having a son in Iraq and helping a daughter deal with the birth of a newborn.
All of these things are in and of themselves stressful, incredibly stressful. I remember having my opinion attacked when I questioned whether she should have gone forward with a VP campaign when she had just given birth to a special needs baby and her daughter was pregnant. Many of you suggested that I was sexist for saying that I felt her priorities should be placed elsewhere. It sounds like she is doing just that – making her family and her own emotional, physical and spiritual health her first priority.
Good day.
Mary,
IF Palin were stepping aside for personal reasons, I could respect that. You are right in that she has a lot on her plate. However, that is not the reason Palin gave.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
I believe that she is stepping away from her job as governor for personal reasons, including her family’s financial needs and opportunities. Unless she makes a lot more trouble, I say let her be.
Makes more trouble? Interesting way to refer to a person whose “trouble” was running for office.
Regards,
Kathryn Simpson
Karen, perhaps you should read more carefully. I didn’t indicate your response was irrelevant; I wrote when you thanked Kathryn wasn’t.
It is obvious Palin was treated unfairly; I and others have said as much political affiliation notwithstanding. The point is whether or not she should have resigned and this is where some opinions have differed.
What you think of me personally is none of my business. Your continued stereotypes and false assumptions are what create drama in this thread. I never got off topic. Instead, I addressed an aspect which caused you discomfort given the blatant hypocrisy you’ve displayed. Deal with it.
IF Palin were stepping aside for personal reasons, I could respect that.
If public office has impacted her at a personal level, which she has said, wouldn’t her choice to discontinue be for those reasons?
IF Palin were stepping aside for personal reasons, I could respect that. You are right in that she has a lot on her plate. However, that is not the reason Palin gave.