« Quote of the Day: David Broder On Robert McNamara and Sarah Palin
Inside Jeb: Is the Smarter Bush Brother in Line to Take Over the GOP? »

The guessing as to what Sarah Palin will do, now that she is quitting her governor job, continues.
Ofttimes, in the reporting on Sarah Palin’s magnanimous decision to quit her day job, the lines get blurred between why Sarah Palin quit, and what she’ll be doing next.
Joe Gandelman posted a piece today, summarizing—and shooting down—a couple of the alleged reasons for Sarah’s quitting.
One is that she did not want the state of Alaska to continue to pay exorbitant amounts of taxpayers’ money to defend her against the many ethics violations charges, as all that money could be “going to things that are very important, like troopers and roads and teachers and fish research.”
Gandelman quotes from The Plum Line:
…David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints…In other words, while these lawyers might have been free to do other legal work for the state, the ethics complaints have apparently not had the real world impact Palin has claimed, and didn’t drain money away from cops, teachers, roads and other things.
This one has now been added to a long and growing list, “The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin: A Round-Up,” kept by Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish.
Another reason is probably a very natural and valid one: Palin is just fed up with the incessant and sometimes vile criticism of her and her family.
As I mentioned, the lines between why Palin quit and what she’ll be doing next, get blurred and probably rightly so, as the two are pretty much intertwined.
A good example was provided by a USA Today Opinion piece earlier this week, combining the two into “what this move really means.”
In, “Palin’s Flameout,” we read:
Sarah Palin’s surprise announcement Friday that she is resigning as governor of Alaska has spawned a thousand theories as to what this move really means.
Take your pick. Palin’s fed up with the news media and late-night comics turning her into a caricature and her family into a national joke. Or she is crazy like a fox, taking a clever, but risky, gamble to position herself to run for president in 2012. Or, she’d rather cash in on her celebrity than tend to governing. Or she’s getting out ahead of some lurking scandal.
Let’s take a look at these four “theories.”
Over the weekend, the FBI probably eliminated one of them: the lurking scandal.
Also over the weekend, after Palin’s reference to a “higher calling,” she most likely eliminated cashing in “on her celebrity,” unless she is totally bereft of scruples. I would not classify making money hand-over-fist as a “higher calling.”
That only leaves getting out of the limelight altogether for her family’s sake and gambling “to position herself to run for president in 2012.”
Being “fed up with the news media and late-night comics turning her into a caricature and her family into a national joke,” could very well be a reason for Palin’s quitting—and a noble one. However, jumping right back into the frying pan of publicity and of that mean media and public opinion, by campaigning for others, for issues, and/or making money hand over fist is really not consistent with such a noble intention, and certainly not a “higher calling.”
Finally, does this move “really mean” that she’ll be gambling “to position herself to run for president in 2012″?
Assuming that, after having been a governor, becoming a U.S. Senator is not that big of a higher calling, the only other higher calling left for Palin is indeed to run for U.S. President in 2012, or 2016.
There are other ways for Sarah Palin to answer to a higher calling, but that takes us into the religious realm, and I don’t know that much about that, or about Sarah Palin.
If this “analysis” of Palin’s decision-making process appears rambling, topsy-turvy, jumbled and not making sense, it probably is.
Perhaps I should have listened to the one thing that made sense in Sarah Palin’s rambling, topsy-turvy, jumbled and not-making-any-sense, “I Quit” speech last Friday, when she referred to a saying kept by her parents on their refrigerator: “Don’t explain: Your friends don’t need it, and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”
We surrendered in the War on Terror the day the Patriot Act was passed. By means of terror, they caused us to surrender the liberty that made America special in history.
Or, to paraphrase I think Benjamin Franklin…he who would sacrifice liberty for security will have neither.
The really funny thing, jwest, is that your argument on this issue is quintessentially LIBERAL (you slippery little devil). Give me some of your liberty and I, the government, will provide something you want.
Your personal freedom certainly isn’t going to suffer under someone from the right as it would from the friendly government people that are here to help you
Dude, sorry, I still disagree. The 'fringe' of each party, as that party gains control of the levers of power, tends to increase its influence, not decrease, until the the great, gray middle reacts. That is why the pendulum of power constantly swings back and forth, and never finds equilibrium. It is always having new energy added to the system.
Sometimes the swings are mild, sometimes they are more violent. To claim there is no tendency towards command and control form the Right is willful ignorance. They types of control desired change between the sides, but not the desire itself.
And as time goes on, each side tends to let go of less and less of the powers inherited from other side, while adding more of their own.
It has been a while since I stated it on this board, but I have indeed done so in the past. I am a Jeffersonian. However, I am also pragmatic enough to know that we are long past the time any meaningful expression of that philosophy is possible, and through the socialization of the Federal Government (by BOTH sides, I freely admit), the other avenue, a Constitutional Convention, could likely lead to civil war.
I think there is actually a chance that what Obama is doing may be the only path back to fiscal sanity and a more prevalent sense of self-determination for the individual and the States over time. That is to go on such a drunken orgy of spending, government seizure and control of assets and the economy, and hyper-regulation, in other words the most violent swing of the pendulum to the Left imaginable, that indeed our economy and economic model will utterly collapse. At that point, sane rebuilding finally becomes the only alternative, and the public will stop beleiving the 'big lies' about., for instance, the whole credit swap issue (actually caused by regulation changes at the end of the Clinton administration); the housing bubble (caused by the Bus Administration manipulation of Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae), the current credit card issues (congressional changes to lending laws), etc.
But the public believes all of these are the fault of greedy business, not the truth – graft and corruption of the Federal Government.
I sure do hope I am wrong, though, and things end better than that.
Enough of a rant for today. It is 105 out today, so maybe my pool at 95 will still somehow feel cool. Time for a swim.