Answer me this: Why should an independant vote for her? She quit her job because of tasteless jokes and ethics complaints? What’s going to happen on the campaign trail?

And the bigger question: If you can’t handle this, what about Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea? Some of these leaders you need to sit down with. Will she walk away after they start making fun of her glasses?

ckoeber on July 7, 2009 at 9:40 PM

Yes, and that’s a good point actually.

In a thread here a couple of days ago, someone brought up the idea that Reagan had to put up with a lot and he didn’t quit.

Several other posters disagreed, and said that there was nowhere near the level of nastiness in the 1980′s, lefty nutroot blogs didn’t exist, Andrew Sullivan was off listening to the Pet Shop Boys, etc.

I put forward the idea the they were forgetting how nasty the left could be in the 1980′s (I know, I was sympatico with the left then, I hated Reagan, but some of the crap used to shock me, and was a factor in my later switching sides).

People (including me) also forgot this little episode of history:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/07/jon-voights-profile-in-courage

Palin should have stuck it out, she had a lot of potential, but she dropped the ball when she quit. Maybe she was just too normal for the crappy political biz.

Regarding “moral hazard,” that is an economic term that describes the deleterious effect on business decisions that occurs when consumers or investors are not allowed to suffer the consequences of their actions; while that is quite the timely topic, I assume you rather mean a general threat to the moral fabric of the country.

No, not really. It’s was shorthand/analogy-in economics, by not allowing investors to suffer the consequences of their actions-you, in effect, encourage other investors to act that way in the future.

By resigning from office in the face of frivolous ethics charges, you encourage others to do the same, to file frivolous ethics charges against officeholders they don’t like in order to drive them out of office.

Here’s one suggestion that our side should do just that:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=&w=MQ==

To dismiss the first due to the obvious existence of the second is rather cynical, don’t you think

I’m not dismissing the “first” due to the “obvious existence of the second”. Nowhere did I say that. I’m simply saying that the “first” had nothing to do with the “second”-and that judged on it’s own terms the “first” is not a valid reason for quitting.

In fact every time I bring up the “first” (taxpayer money), people quickly shift the debate to the “second”, the question of her personal expenses, other than to take the narrow view that “2 million dollars is a lot of money, it’s great that she quit and is saving the taxpayers”

If she’s a great leader, as others suggest, isn’t her leadership worth the additional cost to the taxpayers? Were the taxpayers of Alaska demanding she resign, in order to save them the future costs? Not that I’ve heard.

I mean one million dollars is a lot of money, too. So what took her so long then?

I suppose that we’ll have to agree to disagree . . .

Fair enough.

I explained why (cost/benefit, moral hazard). If you think neither of those reasons are valid, tell me why.

$2M is a lot of money, especially on a preliminary basis and at the state level. You’re right — I pulled the $10M figure out of thin air. However, the state racked up $2M in about eight months; assuming the same amount of activity over the next sixteen months, you’re up to $6M. Since, as I said, everyone knows that the actual level of activity would have skyrocketed, $8-10M does not sound all that “exaggerated” to me, even on reflection.
Regarding “moral hazard,” that is an economic term that describes the deleterious effect on business decisions that occurs when consumers or investors are not allowed to suffer the consequences of their actions; while that is quite the timely topic, I assume you rather mean a general threat to the moral fabric of the country. As Mark Steyn said a week or so ago in the Corner at NRO, get used to it; no normal or sane person can or will want to operate in the asylum that American electoral politics has become. To borrow from the anecdote about Freud being convinced to leave Vienna in front of the Nazis, Sarah Palin didn’t leave the ship — the ship left her.

To quit in order to save the taxpayer’s money is an attempt at giving an altruistic reason for quitting. I explained why I think it wasn’t (cost/benefit, moral hazard).

To quit in order to save herself money is not going to be viewed as altruistic. Understandable, yes. Sensible, maybe. But not altruistic.

Again, all of a piece. As with most decisions in life, she had altruistic as well as self-centered reasons for getting out. To dismiss the first due to the obvious existence of the second is rather cynical, don’t you think? I believe her when she says that it would pain her to see millions of Alaskan dollars wasted on a governor that will be straitjacketed by frivolous ethics complaints and unable to pursue any sort of agenda; you don’t. I suppose that we’ll have to agree to disagree . . .

I don’t have a problem with her misspeaking. Anybody can do that, the current guy does it plenty.

But she ought to bone up on her history.

I assume by “Department of Law”, she meant either the Department of Justice, or the White House Counsel-but the presence of those two institutions didn’t keep plenty of ethics compalaints from being filed against Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II.

Dreadnought on July 7, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Look, even brushing up on history can’t help her.

Answer me this: Why should an independant vote for her? She quit her job because of tasteless jokes and ethics complaints? What’s going to happen on the campaign trail?

And the bigger question: If you can’t handle this, what about Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea? Some of these leaders you need to sit down with. Will she walk away after they start making fun of her glasses?

Doctor Zero, when will you admit that she is done with the political circuit? This woman talks about a “Department of Law” that would have protected her from ethics complaints in the White House.

I don’t have a problem with her misspeaking. Anybody can do that, the current guy does it plenty.

But she ought to bone up on her history.

I assume by “Department of Law”, she meant either the Department of Justice, or the White House Counsel-but the presence of those two institutions didn’t keep plenty of ethics compalaints from being filed against Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II.

If $2M doesn’t meet your apparently lofty standards of wasted taxpayer money,

I explained why (cost/benefit, moral hazard). If you think neither of those reasons are valid, tell me why.

Sarah didn’t mention future costs in her speech, did she? She only had 16 mos. to go in her term, right? Your 10 million figure is pure supposition and sounds quite exaggerated to me.

Were the taxpayers of Alaska screaming for her to resign in order to save money? Not that I’ve heard.

I mean, you can pull out your Introductory Logic textbook and nitpick the construction of those who disagree with you

Doctor Zero here, spent several long paragraphs explaining why he thought that her statement that she was quitting (in part) to save the taxpayers of Alaska $2 Million, was a great idea, and a credit to Palin.

In fact he stated that he thought it would be an excellent issue to campaign on. I explained why I thought he was wrong. That’s hardly nitpicking.

And it’s been a long time since I was in college, but there’s nothing wrong with logic, is there?

although a “straw man” and a “supporting argument” are generally considered to be different rhetorical devices

But the taxpayers 2M. and the Palin’s 500 K are separate issues. Bringing up the 500K of personal cash is a straw man and bait-and-switch, when someone is telling you that it is great that she quit to save the taxpayer’s money.

To quit in order to save the taxpayer’s money is an attempt at giving an altruistic reason for quitting. I explained why I think it wasn’t (cost/benefit, moral hazard).

To quit in order to save herself money is not going to be viewed as altruistic. Understandable, yes. Sensible, maybe. But not altruistic.

Separate issues.

Doctor Zero, when will you admit that she is done with the political circuit? This woman talks about a “Department of Law” that would have protected her from ethics complaints in the White House.

Her best bet is either within the party shoring up support for other candidates or going on Fox News and becoming a pundit.

She is done. Finished. Finito.

The sooner you realize that the sooner you will start to write things that talk about reality.

You’re missing the point — Governor Palin had to pay $500,000 out of her own pocket, all to defend against baseless charges. She’s from Wasilla, not Beverly Hills, for God’s sake — she would soon be bankrupt at the rate that it was going, and all signs pointed to that as just the beginning

.

No. You’re missing the point. Please stick to the issue at hand.

The in passage Doctor Zero’s post that I was replying to didn’t mention the 500K out of her own pocket-he was writing about the $2 Million that the ethics charges cost the taxpayers of Alaska. And that was what I was referring to-please go back and re-read his post, and my reply in the comments.

I contend that the 2 million was a lousy reason for her to quit, for the reasons I outlined in my post above.

So far I’ve posted about this twice (in this thread, and another), and I’ve yet to get a single answer as to why I was wrong. I have gotten a lot of straw men (and worse, however).

The 500 K the ethics charges cost her personally is a separate issue, and I agree it is a better reason for quitting (although other public officials have rung up larger lawyer bills than that and hung in there-she certainly has the fan base to fundraise).

But that is a separate issue from the point Doctor Zero here was trying to refute; the idea that Palin “…was foolish to cite the cost to Alaskan taxpayers as a reason for her resignation, since it was a paltry two million dollars”.

I do think she was foolish to cite the cost-for the reasons I stated above.

Please try to stay on the subject and not bring in straw men.

Yes, two million dollars is a lot of money, Hell, $100,000 is a lot of money-$1000 is a lot of money to me-so maybe she should have quit sooner, right?
Dreadnought on July 7, 2009 at 4:44 PM

You’re missing the point — Governor Palin had to pay $500,000 out of her own pocket, all to defend against baseless charges. She’s from Wasilla, not Beverly Hills, for God’s sake — she would soon be bankrupt at the rate that it was going, and all signs pointed to that as just the beginning. And you know that the Republican Party wasn’t going to help her, even to the point of giving her PAC a boost — the apparatchiks despise her. As Nietzsche said, men destroy what they don’t understand. What in the hell was she going to get done in Juneau, between dodging ACORN bombthrowers and the repo man? A lot of people, especially a lot of the panjandrums of the conservative movement, are trying really hard to miss a really simple point.

To me, that doesn’t sound like a criticism – it’s a campaign slogan. Sarah Palin: She Still Thinks A Million Bucks Is A Lot of Money.

Sarah Palin: My leadership isn’t worth the cost of repaving a half mile of interstate highway.

Sarah Palin: Vote for me, but if I get harrassed with bogus ethics charges that cost taxpayers money, I’ll quit.

Acorn: It worked!!! Who’s next?

Yes, two million dollars is a lot of money, Hell, $100,000 is a lot of money-$1000 is a lot of money to me-so maybe she should have quit sooner, right?

Let’s see-Iran-Contra cost taxpayers 36 million dollars more than 20 years ago-you could probably at least double that cost if it happened now-yet very little came of it-Reagan was a lot more of a lame duck then Palin is now-should Reagan have resigned?

Maybe half or more of that 36 million could have been saved. Think of all the wonderful things that could have been done with it!

It’s a bogus argument. Palin was reaching when she included it in her speech-if she’s a good governor, or a great governor her leadership is worth more than two million dollars-even to a state like Alaska-where she helps oversee a budget of several billion dollars.

And it introduces another moral hazard in a country where that is now becoming a matter of course-by letting those who filed these bogus charges chase her out of office. That’s not a victory folks, no matter how you try to spin it.

Weight of Gold stated:

I think many on our side, who have a genuine desire to defend Palin, have let that desire cloud over what it is that makes Palin Palin: she believes that our lives don’t hinge on her and her alone. There’s something liberating about that for a movement, and it’s something that the conservative movement needs. Instead of simply focusing on Palin, I think it’d be a good idea to focus on what it is about her that hits home with so many of us.

***********************************************

For me that quality is empowerment.

Palin projects a sense of empowerment while Obama peddles a sense of entitlement.

The second point that needs fixing is a loser-pays clause so, if Citizen X files a frivolous ethics charge, and it’s found frivolous, Citizen X must re-pay the *rest* of the Alaskans for what his frivolity cost. If Citizen X is unwilling to pay, they forfeit their share of the oil revenue until their debt is paid.

Mew

acat on July 7, 2009 at 12:08 PM

That’s a solid idea. I like it.

RightOFLeft on July 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM
—–
The law is actually not a bad idea – *any Alaskan* can be a whistleblower, skips right around the whole idea of proving standing, so makes it harder for crooks to get rid of cases filed by concerned citizens with no ox in the fight.

The problem is .. it’s *too* open. I’d suggest keeping the “any Alaskan” part, but adding a “once per official per year” or similar restriction. Yes, this means a coalition can still carpet-bomb an official, but it *also* means the target of the flak can be identified by association and reacted to.

The second point that needs fixing is a loser-pays clause so, if Citizen X files a frivolous ethics charge, and it’s found frivolous, Citizen X must re-pay the *rest* of the Alaskans for what his frivolity cost. If Citizen X is unwilling to pay, they forfeit their share of the oil revenue until their debt is paid.

Mew

It’s an odd set of laws, no matter who passed them, and further proof that even the most well-meaning laws often have unintended consequences: a law meant to make Alaska’s government more transparent and accountable instead turns into a weapon in the arsenal of mob rule.

Doctor Zero on July 7, 2009 at 8:28 AM

If only Alaska had a popular governer with a solid record of getting things done in her home state to help fix the law.

I’m left wondering, all the nastiness directed solely at Sarah aside, how many dimmirat pols could have withstood what Sarah Palin has had to in the vicious attacks against her children. We’ll never know, of course, because our side don’t play dat, but it would be an interesting study.

Sarah Palin: ‘I’m not a Crook quitter’ CNN INTERVIEW 7/6/09

the_nile on July 7, 2009 at 6:45 AM

Can’t wait to see her go on the offensive. If I was a lib I’d be worried.

shmendrick on July 6, 2009 at 10:49 PM

Oh, their worried alright. Many Republicans worried also. I would bet that Sarah knows by now exactly who on the right was leaking planted information to the State Run Media. Sarah will go after all of them; take no prisoners. Let the public know the facts, and we will take it from there.

Alaska’s odd government ethics system

You mean the ethics reform Palin was so proud of?

Phoenician on July 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM

I have to admit, you have a point here — I just did a little bit of research, and the ethics law in question was passed in July 2007, under Palin’s administration. Having said that, I hope you don’t mean that you’re proud of your party for using an ethics law that was poorly constructed but with the best of intentions as a political cudgel to attempt to bankrupt an opponent in the absence of any actual violation.

loneloc on July 7, 2009 at 7:40 AM

It’s an odd set of laws, no matter who passed them, and further proof that even the most well-meaning laws often have unintended consequences: a law meant to make Alaska’s government more transparent and accountable instead turns into a weapon in the arsenal of mob rule.

Alaska’s odd government ethics system

You mean the ethics reform Palin was so proud of?

Phoenician on July 7, 2009 at 12:10 AM

I have to admit, you have a point here — I just did a little bit of research, and the ethics law in question was passed in July 2007, under Palin’s administration. Having said that, I hope you don’t mean that you’re proud of your party for using an ethics law that was poorly constructed but with the best of intentions as a political cudgel to attempt to bankrupt an opponent in the absence of any actual violation.

Sarah Palin: ‘I’m not a quitter’ CNN INTERVIEW 7/6/09

Alaska’s odd government ethics system

You mean the ethics reform Palin was so proud of?

I agree.

If she wants a career, she can overcome the perceived problems this will cause, or she can walk away.

It’s in her hands; really, it was never anywhere else.

Mew

what it is that makes Palin Palin: she believes that our lives don’t hinge on her and her alone.

Words that come to mind are “humble” and “servant.”

an awful lot of people are very interested in voting for someone like Sarah Palin… and there is no one else like Sarah Palin.

*gives Doctor Zero a big smooch*

A lot of people will like the idea of voting for someone who doesn’t use rolls of taxpayer dollars to wipe the ink off their hands after signing legislation

that he hasn’t read.

(and I agree)