Comments on: Sarah Palin: Multi-Millionaire

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:31:49 +0000

Well, sure it makes sense if you assume she’s a liar. But I don’t, so I’ll stick with the reasons she’s already given.

By: Interested

Interested — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:14:47 +0000

I don’t think it’s a money thing. They were alreay into 6 figures before she became gov. This is Alaska we’re talking about.

To me, the take home message is that we need ethics laws which also hold the accusers liable for frivolous complaints- so that the accusers would have to pay legal fees if the charge is dismissed or found unwarranted

true that

One snarky addendum to my Clinton comparison: unfortunately the office of governor of Alaska didn’t allow her the opportunity to offer pardons to wealthy felons in return for hefty donations to the legal defense fund.

Yup – but looks like they put that For Sale sign right back up on the front lawn of 1600

By: Holly

Holly — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:10:36 +0000

This liberal is not scared of Sarah Palin and doesn’t know many who are.

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:46:45 +0000

Michael: I have no problem with people wanting to go after the money, but there is something to be said about realizing the responsibilities that come with elected office, namely, serving out your term.

I mean, come on. It was another year and five months. She’d have almost another two years to raise funds, campaign, and write books and columns if she wanted to. Even if you think she’s going to try for president in 2012, she would have had at least a year before the serious campaigning began.

I think you’re right that it’s a possible reason, but I wonder a little about her commitment to the office she holds if money is the sole reason she’s left.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:16:26 +0000

One snarky addendum to my Clinton comparison: unfortunately the office of governor of Alaska didn’t allow her the opportunity to offer pardons to wealthy felons in return for hefty donations to the legal defense fund.

By: CStanley

CStanley — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:14:34 +0000

My guess is that it was all of the above in terms of the factors weighing into her decision. I don’t know how you can discount the effect of the multiple frivolous ethics complaints against her, or say that she should have just fought them. She did attempt to take that route but it was going to lead to bankrupting her family and it was a major distraction from her ability to govern.

So, when considering that, did she and her family consider the not inconsiderable sums they could raise if she was no longer constrained? I imagine I would, and I imagine they did.

The situation really was not unlike what Clinton faced when in office, but as president there are numerous layers of staff to handle a lot of the complaints and investigations, and probably even more importantly, he had a lot of wealthy donors to help out his legal defense fund. It seems to me that Palin felt forced to free herself from the constraints of office in order to raise the funds herself, and then probably also rationalized that the state would be better off without her as a distraction and that she could also participate in politics better as an activist at this point.

To me, the take home message is that we need ethics laws which also hold the accusers liable for frivolous complaints- so that the accusers would have to pay legal fees if the charge is dismissed or found unwarranted.

By: c3

c3 — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:43:10 +0000

Michael;
I read the linked article at the Daily Beast. Seems like an awlful lot of speculation, both about plans and the dollars involved. There’s certainly been much mention of a possible book deal. However, that’s as earth-shaking as saying the sun rose in the east today. I’m not trying to excuse anything but the article did seem to have a lot of “well of course!” attitude to it.

why don’t we try this: think of her as Fred thompson (only without the Watergate and Senate experience) WE can discuss a little about why the candidacy didn’t pan out, what the “behavioral issues” were, maybe even throW in a litte “appealing to the red meat crowd” for the benefit of our liberal friends. but we won’t have the heartbroken boyfriend attitude (“she broke my heart”) and we won’t have the b*tchy cat fight anger (“she’s an empty-headed christianist”)

By: Doomed

Doomed — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:35:58 +0000

As far as I can tell, conservatives have been losing every battle they have fought for some time now. They get beaten over and over and over.

The GOP bashed the Democrats to the point that they were all wandering around questioning everything they did for years. They were beaten. Haggard and lost. Even when the GOP was in power and things were going good they were bashing Hillary Clinton non stop whenever they could get a jab in edgewise.

Why?

1. They hated her and everything she stood for.
2. They feared her and believed that she had the power to capture the White House.

I’ll never forget listening to Rush Limbaugh one day back during the primaries when Hillary was still winning but Obama was coming on strong.

Paraphrasing here….Obama mania will burn out. They cant sustain this amount of hype and enthuasim for long. The Obama flare will burn out. Hillary however is the democrats nominee and Hillary is the one that the Gop should be focused on and worrying about.

Yes. The democrats fear Palin, because they know just as Obama Fired up the base and the independents to a win….Palin has that ability to fire people up and get them excited…so yes the Democrats fear Palin…..and rightly so.

By: Mo MoDo

Mo MoDo — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:22:45 +0000

The right wing’s answer to Maureen Dowd? She has yet to prove she can speak a coherent sentence let alone write one. Call me when Sarah has a Pulitzer Prize of her own.

By: Garland

Garland — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:57:35 +0000

“I do not for one second believe that she resigned because of the ethics complaints against her. If she is a fighter – and I believe she is – unfair accusations encourage rather than discourage her.”

This seems to imply that the ethics complaints are unfair.

While it makes sense for her to trick more people into giving her money in the vain hope that she has anything in common with them, I find it a bit worrisome that she couldn’t wait to the end of her boring, ordinary governor’s office before jumping to venues where she can serve and encourage people more effectively and profitably. I mean, if not even governorship is suitable for her ambitions, what is? Well, she continues to drive the republican impulse to profile yourself and your opponent (and blame the media when you inevitably fail) rather than attract voters with actual substance and non-ideological solutions. So I wish her the best of luck considering all the donations she’ll attract won’t amount to anything.