Sarah Palin's Lame Duck Defense
One of the stranger aspects of Sarah Palin's announcement Friday that she will resign as governor of Alaska was the notion that it followed naturally from her decision not to seek reelection next year.
The argument goes that executives who can't - or in Palin's case simply choose not to - seek reelection are no longer accountable to their constituents. Their legislative counterparts no longer have to worry about continuing to work with them. So they just amble on, enjoying the fancy dinners and chartered jets that come with their positions, accomplishing little in their waning days in office.
Palin put it this way in her resignation speech:
It's a tough justification to swallow. Are we really to believe that serving out her term would be an automatic waste of time and resources? For one thing, its logical endpoint would be that all presidents should resign as soon as they're elected to a second term, lest they waste America's time with four years of unaccountable lame duck status. Senators and congressmen should resign too as soon as they see retirement or a losing electoral fight on the horizon.
More importantly, though, the argument often goes the other way. Presidents are often thought to be bolder in tackling tough political fights in their second terms when standing for reelection is no longer a concern.
Second (or later) term executives also don't have to appoint new cabinets and staffs or transition in from a lower office. They may even have a gained a bit of wisdom or experience serving their earlier terms.
It's certainly true that many presidents - reaching back to Thomas Jefferson - have had forgettable second terms. But Republican hero Ronald Reagan effectively ended the Cold War and passed vaunted GOP tax reforms in his "lame duck" second term. And it's not clear that the second term scourge applies in the same way to term-limited governors - who may, as Palin may, have further political aspirations.
And even if the lame duck arguments are true and second term executives are less effective, Palin is abdicating more than a year of service remaining in her current (first) term.
(Palin went on to argue in her Facebook post that, "Though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make," but it's far from clear who she is referring to that was lauded for ditching their elected office mid-term. Even Mark Sanford's planning to stick it out.)
Palin's possible motivations for resigning have been the subject of extensive discussion and debate, here on CBSNews.com and elsewhere. Only time - and Palin's future course - will tell.
But the idea that Palin would automatically be letting her constituents down if she continued to serve even when she didn't plan to seek reelection seemed less a lame duck argument than just a lame argument.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. The argument goes that executives who can't - or in Palin's case simply choose not to - seek reelection are no longer accountable to their constituents. Their legislative counterparts no longer have to worry about continuing to work with them. So they just amble on, enjoying the fancy dinners and chartered jets that come with their positions, accomplishing little in their waning days in office.
Palin put it this way in her resignation speech:
And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it". I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!She made the same argument in a July 4th Facebook post, saying, "Once I decided not to run for re-election, my decision was that much easier - I've never been one to waste time or resources."
It's a tough justification to swallow. Are we really to believe that serving out her term would be an automatic waste of time and resources? For one thing, its logical endpoint would be that all presidents should resign as soon as they're elected to a second term, lest they waste America's time with four years of unaccountable lame duck status. Senators and congressmen should resign too as soon as they see retirement or a losing electoral fight on the horizon.
More importantly, though, the argument often goes the other way. Presidents are often thought to be bolder in tackling tough political fights in their second terms when standing for reelection is no longer a concern.
Second (or later) term executives also don't have to appoint new cabinets and staffs or transition in from a lower office. They may even have a gained a bit of wisdom or experience serving their earlier terms.
It's certainly true that many presidents - reaching back to Thomas Jefferson - have had forgettable second terms. But Republican hero Ronald Reagan effectively ended the Cold War and passed vaunted GOP tax reforms in his "lame duck" second term. And it's not clear that the second term scourge applies in the same way to term-limited governors - who may, as Palin may, have further political aspirations.
And even if the lame duck arguments are true and second term executives are less effective, Palin is abdicating more than a year of service remaining in her current (first) term.
(Palin went on to argue in her Facebook post that, "Though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make," but it's far from clear who she is referring to that was lauded for ditching their elected office mid-term. Even Mark Sanford's planning to stick it out.)
Palin's possible motivations for resigning have been the subject of extensive discussion and debate, here on CBSNews.com and elsewhere. Only time - and Palin's future course - will tell.
But the idea that Palin would automatically be letting her constituents down if she continued to serve even when she didn't plan to seek reelection seemed less a lame duck argument than just a lame argument.
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 646 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 120 Comments
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 68 Comments
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 279 Comments
well Carter, Clinton and Obama had the sense not to use their kids as props during their campaigns
If that is true why are the Obama kids all over my tv everytime I turn it on? And it was the same during the campaign too! But no one said a WORD about that!
I think the point ladypirate is that if you wish to play in the game expect back what you have given. When you look back over the last 3 decades at the way politics has been conducted and the way the Bush's won it becomes VERY clear why we have conditions as we do. From the Willie Horton Ads to the Swift Boat Ads the goal was to tar the candidate using ANY tools available. It only began to hurt when it came home to the Radical Right
She hasn't given nearly as much as she has received by FAR! In fact she should have gave much more than she has! She was held in check, though, during the campaign, especially for the first couple of months, by the RNC and by John McCain and was told what she could and could not say. It was a BIG MISTAKE! They should have turned her loose and let her attack like she wanted to! I think that was one thing that caused John McCain to lose the election. As I have said before, he was his own worst enemy. He didn't want to win badly enough to fight for it and attack. In the end he just seemed like a weak, sick old man compared to the much younger Obama.
And another thing Sarah Palin has never, ever attacked anyone's children but her's certainly have been attacked!
I admit they were cruel to Chelsea Clinton but all she was called was ugly. Bristol Palin has been ridiculed by every late night "comedian" in the country and she has been called every filthy name in the book by people on these comment boards. Then there is the stupid, idiotic remarks that people on these boards have said about Sarah's little Downs Syndrome baby Trig and Bristol's baby Tripp! The treatment of Chelsea Clinton, cruel as it was, doesn't even begin to compare with how the Palin children have been treated! Even the innocent babies have been targets!
I think they were saying more about Chelsea Clinton than that. And I don't think that Chelsea Clinton would have felt it was any less cruel. She lived with it for years.
And you don't think that Chelsea Clinton wasn't ridiculed by all the "late night" comedians? Get a grip.
http://richardtgarner.blogspot.com/2009/07/palin-keeps-em-guessin.html
They might actually gain those of us who actually get up and work for a living, pay our taxes and fight fairly...
When did journalism schools start teaching that you could add your own little opinion into the news itself? Journalism gone wrong.
"She is a dumb hick, a nobody from nowhere. She hunts moose with a chainsaw from the back of a snowmobile or something. Just listen to her resignation speech. It was not slick or polished or written by somebody else. She appeared to deliver it off the top of her head as if she were a real person. What a doofus!
Doesn?t she know that the highest form of political communication today is to exactly regurgitate a speech written for you by a speechwriter who has crafted, vetted and polled every phrase, line and word? "
America had better wake up and do it quickly. The media is trying to convince us that glib is good, that rhetoric and lots of verbage is what we want and need. Would you prefer someone who speaks like you or someone who can't speak without a teleprompter or a speechwriter??? I don't get it. It's pretty obvious to me that Sarah is scaring the pants off of a lot of people. It's gotta make you wonder why, doesn't it??
I seem to recall that there were a lot of people who didn't think Reagan was very smart either.
GOTCHA!