I've long thought the criticisms of Sarah Palin were always far more about her detractors than about her. Listen closely to the people who hate her most, and it doesn't take long to find their insecurities and bigotries bubbling to the surface.
There's quite a bit of that happening in the wake of her resignation, and countless experts are certainly spending entirely too much time on this inconsequential figure explaining why their neuroses are justified entirely by the vaccuum of knowledge they seem to have accrued about the woman.
So naturally, I must give this sort of speculation a go. Here's why I think Palin resigned.
She had to pay to go to work. Seriously. $500k in attorneys fees for frivolous ethics complaints by petty, vindictive political opponents? If I had to wake up every morning, stumble into the office, and then pay them $100 an hour for the pleasure of dealing with any of my co-workers, I'd be out. Hell, out? I'd not have shown up at all. My alarm clock would be met with a middle finger and a baseball bat.
It wouldn't be strange or bizarre or erratic or <insert mystery synonym degrading to women here>.
It would be the commonest of common sense. All of us would do it.
See? There's my explanation. And it didn't even require a imaginative, hallucinatory journey up her birth canal brought on by heavy doses of steroids and other assorted, uhm, medicines from demented barebacking lunatics.
I'm pretty sure I win.
So, then, my equally speculative question is, if that were the reason she quit, why not just, you know, SAY THAT in her rambling press conference?
Posted by: Quakerjono | July 07, 2009 at 12:06 AM
I thought that's what she was saying. Granted, I wasn't listening closely, but I thought that was the general drift of it.
Posted by: Robbie | July 07, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Maybe that was part of it, Robbie. But she said that she was a lame duck, and she explained that some lame duck governors travel, draw a pay check, "milk it," etc, and didn't think it was fair to her constituents to be put through that, as if there is some cosmic force to make her do that, even though she said that's not her style.
Who knows what the real reasons are? Maybe it was a combination of things, since the speech contained a slew of possible reasons along with metaphors. And who knows what her political ambitions, if any, will be.
Posted by: Pat | July 07, 2009 at 08:28 AM
I think quitting was a bad decision, and if she wants to stay in politics it's going to haunt her, however if she's not, there are few down sides..
Posted by: Tim | July 07, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Well, I personally have no use for the simpleton, but in spite of myself I tend to think her youngest child has a lot to do with it and give her credit in that regard.
Then again, maybe her brain is just frozen.
Posted by: Jamie | July 08, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I love how people that claim to despise her keep talking about her. It's like a mental illness with them.
Posted by: KevinQC | July 12, 2009 at 06:06 PM
You've got a point, Kevin. People despise Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Ted Kennedy, etc., and they still keep talking about them.
Posted by: Pat | July 13, 2009 at 07:11 AM
I think the ironic thing about your theory here is that she most certainly was not "inconsequential" until she pulled this stunt (and I optimistically believe that she now is just that). The woman was one of four people who could have conceivably been the President of these United States. I fail to see how that makes her inconsequential, or how that makes those of us who were absolutely horrified by that possibility insecure or "bigoted". If disliking stupid people is bigoted, then I'll just have to live with the label.
To Kevin's point, I also fail to see how someone like her, who is still (by her own devices mainly) a media darling isn't appropriate to talk about and comment on. Her pathetic attempts to paint herself as some sort of down-home real American who is so distraught because the big, mean liberal media machine keeps picking on her fall flatter and flatter as she poses and preens for the nearest available camera.
That this failure of a politician is (or was) considered to be a serious player in the post-apocalyptic nightmare that is the GOP currently pretty much tells me everything I need to know about why they have ceased to be a legitimate opposition party. And I honestly say that with great sadness, because we all know what happens when the Dems go unchecked.
Posted by: Aatom | July 14, 2009 at 05:56 PM
Don't worry Kevin, I always say, "Bless her heart," right after I call her a "raging case of syphilis slowly eating away at the brain of modern politics."
After all, I'm from the technical South. I was raised with manners.
Posted by: Quakerjono | July 14, 2009 at 07:59 PM
you've got the South down perfectly. I've always said that we smile sweetly while slipping the knife into your back.
Posted by: Aatom | July 14, 2009 at 08:01 PM
I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about her being "inconsequential"?
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/despite-quitting-palin-still-most-popular-figure-in-gop-by-a-mile/
What does she have to do to lose her perplexing grip on the GOP? Release a sex tape of her and Al Franken doing it doggy-style?
Posted by: Aatom | July 16, 2009 at 06:11 PM
I don't really care for the Palinesta, I'm just happy to see Robbie and The Malcontent back on-line. Happy Blogging, and Paul/Flake '12!
Posted by: Audrey the Liberal | August 01, 2009 at 04:13 PM
who pays to go to work?????
damn, you go to work to be pay!
not to pay for it!!
that's like someone wants to Buy Generic Viagra and get pay for that
lol
Posted by: kat | November 03, 2009 at 04:10 PM