MY TAKE ON PALIN'S RESIGNATION...

(Long Post Warning)

I was asked this morning at coffee by a friend, who is far more 'liberal' than I (but then many feel that Genghis Khan was more 'liberal' than I am) why I haven't commented on this blog about Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska?

I haven't mentioned it up to now primarily because I view it as something of a 'non-event'.

Many within the traditional 'Conservative' side of politics look to her as a future hope and beacon of light, but I view this move on her part as something of a forfeiture of her political future. After reading everything I can, that pertains to Mrs. Palin, I feel she believed the problems that her national posture and political stance had caused was beginning to become more trouble that it was worth. I'm sure as the mother of a very young 'special needs' child she felt that many of the attacks on her children were well 'below the belt' and on this point I agree emphatically.

But then many have recently criticized one of the Obama girls for wearing a peace symbol shirt in Moscow last week. My view is they are kids, and teenagers to boot, so it comes with the territory. They are going to make mistakes and occasionally stupid moves, but they are still kids. Comments about children whether they are Sarah Palin's or Barack Obama's, if negative in any way, should be "Off Limits" and 'Out Of Bounds'. Kids do stupid stuff. They make mistakes....like get pregnant, for instance, and to criticize them or their parents for these mistakes simply illustrates the fact the person making these dumbass and inappropriate comments has never tried to raise a teenager, or if they did they were probably just flat lucky their girls didn't get pregnant or their sons didn't wear some stupid t-shirt in the glare of the international media.

I feel Palin probably resigned more for financial reasons than anything else. It is rumored she can get $40,000 for a speaking engagement and it is also rumored she has legal bills totaling more than $500,000 from all the nuisance lawsuits that have been brought against her. It should be noted that none of them have proved a damn thing against her. Still, she had to defend herself and when you coupled these legal difficulties, together with the attacks on her family, it is understandable she felt the 'cost' of her political career was greater than the 'reward'.

But with everything in life there is a price. I think it was Harry Truman who said, "If you can't stand the Heat, Git Out of the Kitchen!" Sarah has left the kitchen and thereby in my opinion she has forfeited her right for a guaranteed political office on the national stage. Yes, she is more qualified than Caroline Kennedy for a Senate seat, but both of them MUST campaign for it and each shall have to suffer through the slings and arrows that comes with such an election and eventual political office.

Another reason I haven't commented on Palin is because of my earlier post where I no longer define myself as a 'Conservative'. I know I'm NOT a 'Liberal', nor am I a 'Libertarian'.

I'm not a 'Libertarian' because of their positions on illicit narcotics and recreational drug use. I'm convinced there is NO solution to our national drug problem; criminal or otherwise. Nothing we can do will erase it or correct this terrible plague affecting our society. And I certainly don't believe that 'liberalizing' current criminal statues is going to improve the situation and for those who think such things would make our country better....I ask you a simple question,

"Show me one country in the world, NOT even the western world, but the entire world where liberalizing criminal penalties for drug possession lowered the overall crime rate, raised tax revenues, improved property values and made their Gross National Product index improve?"

And don't give me this crap about the Netherlands and their Pot laws. Show me something where liberalizing the possession of cocaine, heroin, crystal meth and other hard narcotics made even one of the previous mentioned indicators improve for the country in general over the long haul?

Don't think for a second, however, I endorse the present policy of 'asset forfeiture' that many police agencies and prosecutors use in their personal wars on illicit narcotics. My view is Law Enforcement should not be a 'For Profit' Enterprise.

Law enforcement should always be viewed by the public and government officials as a "loss leader". Just like the soda pop that is sold in the grocery store at well below cost in order to get people to walk in their store. Law enforcement when effective should make the community safer, a better place to transact legitimate businesses and raise families, but it should always be an acknowledged government 'loss leader' in terms of profit, not one where specific agencies hoard the financial windfalls from asset confiscation involved in a criminal drug transaction.

I know I'm not a 'Liberal' because I know enough about economics to understand you can't tax yourself back into prosperity. You can't spend more than you take in whether you are a private individual or a governmental entity, despite all the references to FDR and his economic policies. What everyone who mentions FDR and his borrowing conveniently forgets or fails to mention is the rationing (of just about everything) and forced savings (through war bonds) this country endured during World War Two. It was these two things combined together that made FDR and his Democratic Congress economic policies break the Great Depression and work in the long run.

Four years without consumer goods like electric stoves, refrigerators, even radios, not to mention things like automobiles (fuel efficient or otherwise), Ipods, computers or big screen TVs is what made the policy of the government borrowing and spending money (it didn't have) work. (My dad needed a truck for the farm, but it wasn't allowed, so he bought the 'bed' for it in 1943. He didn't get the truck itself until 1946 when the government permitted Detroit to sell such things to private citizens. I still have it. It sits on the 1957 model that he traded the 1946 for years ago.) Additionally, the pent-up demand for all those consumer goods that were denied during WWII drove the domestic economy so far forward during the late 1940's and early 1950's that it made firms like General Motors look absolutely invincible. (My dad once told me his federal income tax in 1950 or '51 was only 3% of his total income. It was so low because the economy was SO STRONG.) Was GM's management any better back then than it is today? I don't think so, but forcing the nation to conserve through rationing and buying government bonds is an essential part of the economic policies of the past that many 'Liberals' today like to ignore with the current 'tax and spend' Congress and President. I know I'm NOT a 'Liberal'.

I don't think history in terms of conventional 'Conservative' definitions will be kind to George W. Bush. He wrapped himself in the cloak of a 'Conservative'. He maintained their position on low taxes to stimulate the economy, but he so totally mismanaged the fiscal side of the house that he made inebriated sea-farers leaving a whorehouse look like seasoned and successful investment managers. In my opinion, he damaged the 'Conservative' label so badly the hangover continues still.

This is where I feel Sarah Palin's future may lie. She needs to redefine the standards and definitions of a 'Conservative' because she is good at attracting attention and getting people to discuss, if not ridicule, her talking points, but the important point for future reference is she is seldom ignored.

She can bring attention to subjects like fiscal responsibility, a national policy on energy (something I feel she is knowledgeable on because of her experiences in Alaska) as well as a number of other issues. What she needs to avoid are social issues like gay marriage (it's nobody's business what two consenting adults agree to do behind closed doors. Children, however, are another issue altogether.) and the previous 'Conservative' engagement of marriage between church and state. There has always been a separation and for good reason, I feel if it is not firmly re-established by those calling themselves 'Conservatives', it will come back and bite many of us (who consider ourselves Christians) enormously in the posterior.

Right now I considered myself a political J-Walker, but Palin could help return 'Conservatives' to something I respect, if she realizes she has forfeited some of her creditability. Yet, she remains someone I would prefer to listen to, as opposed to say.....Rush Limbaugh.

Currently I still view her resignation as a 'non-event'. What she does in terms of orchestrating those like me who used to think of themselves as 'Conservatives' will really prove to be the pivotal event.

All The Best,

Frank W. James