Ding dong?

So the big news of the day is Sarah Palin’s resignation as governor of Alaska.

Supposedly, Palin has grown sufficiently sick of being savaged by the media as to warrant resignation. MSNBC is running a report that says she wants to be out of politics entirely, to take the time to raise her family.

Of course, many people are unwilling to believe that someone as fond of the spotlight as Palin would truly be getting out of it for good. Thus, the theories are flying – what does this resignation really mean? Especially regarding 2012?

One theory is that she’s pregnant again. All things considered, I’m not sure that would stop her from working or running – there were times when Trig seemed as much a campaign prop as anything else.

Another is that she is, in fact, doing this in order to free herself from any constraint on running for the Presidency in 2012. This, to me, seems somewhat illogical, since it gives all of her primary opponents the ammunition of ‘she ditched her state once her numbers dropped and oil revenues slowed down, how’s she going to handle the Presidency?’.

Last but not least, she may be planning to run for Lisa Murkowski’s Senate seat in 2010, thus keeping her in Washington and close to the power elite while she builds for a run at the Presidency in 2016. This would also allow her to avoid having to run against Obama’s re-election juggernaut, which is likely to be formidable, and allow some of her 2008 issues to fade from memory. Murkowski herself seems to be aware of this possibility, given that she slammed Palin’s decision before the ink was dry.

So what do you think, faithful readers? What’s going on behind the trademark wink?

Read Full Post »

Of blanketeering governors and economic collapse

Everyone remembers Client #9. The news story was almost as widespread as that “Love Potion #9” song, though there appears to be no connection.

Eliot Spitzer was governor of New York. Elected in 2006 by a comfortable margin, he came in promising reform and decency, then resigned in disgrace after a hooker blew his job. Partial credit there, Eliot.

In more detail, Spitzer failed at decency when he was caught out in a sting operation as a client of a highly paid call girl with eyes so close together that her nose had to get in the way as a referee.

The ensuing scandal brought Spitzer low, as many will remember.

BUT.

He is hardly the first public official to have – and indeed admit to – such indiscretions. The vast majority of these have kept their jobs and indeed continue to serve, sometimes admirably. The sexual peccadilloes of the governing elite are not indicative of their ability to do their jobs, after all.

So what made Eliot special?

As attorney general, Spitzer had done a great deal of good, going after big corporations with practices that hurt the little guy.

Poor phrasing there, I apologize.

As attorney general, Spitzer had done a great deal of good, going after big corporations with practices that hurt their customers and smaller competitors.

On February 14 2008, the Washington Post ran an Spitzer editorial titled, “Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime: How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers”. In this article, he detailed the federal derailment of his own investigations into the crisis back in 2003.

About two weeks later, he Spitzer proposed legislation which would have imposed penalties for mortgage fraud and predatory lending practices.

Needless to say, he was making himself few friends in the White House or on Wall Street. In a curious parallel (and by curious I mean blatant) his case was dealt with in DC instead of being referred to state authorities, and the first voices howling for impeachment belonged to downstate Republican members of the state legislature.

Had Spitzer been allowed to continue on his path, either in 2003 or 2008, the economic situation might have been significantly different.

Regrettably, his blanketeering gave opponents just the opening they needed in order to bring him down.

Read Full Post »