There has been a lot of talk and analysis about Sarah Palin's sudden resignation. I think this post by Stanley Fish, someone I rarely agree with, is the best I've read. I think he is mostly right that she resigned for the reasons she stated - that the intense attacks have distracted from the normal affairs of Alaska. I am not saying this was the right decision (after all, Clinton did not resign), but I can understand it. The only caveat I would add is that she was somewhat cryptic about her future plans, which has lead to a lot of the speculation.
This post by The Politicker is similarly critical of the all the analysis and is pretty fair.
The new conservative columnist at the times also wrote about Palin. His column though makes a common false claim about the way people perceive Palin. He, and others, claim that Palin was attacked for not having the right education. I find this absurd. True, her education was frequently mentioned, but the problem was not her education itself, but her lack of competence and thoughtfulness. Her education was used as evidence of these concerns, instead of the requirements for being a good public official.
I have always believed, and I think the country mostly agrees, that there are no educational requirements for public service. But being thoughtful and smart is required.
No comments:
Post a Comment