Via Politico.com: Palin calls for Begich’s resignation
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) called on Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska ) Thursday to step down from his seat and run in a special election in the wake of the Justice Department’s decision to drop corruption charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Begich narrowly defeated Stevens in 2008, a contest overshadowed by Stevens’ October conviction.Palin’s call came after a reporter at the Fairbanks News Miner emailed her a copy of a statement by Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich calling for Begich to step down.
Asked for her response, Palin simply wrote back: “I absolutely agree.”
When the reporter wrote back to confirm that Palin meant she’d like to see Begich resign in order to hold a special election, the governor responded: “Yes.”
Just to make sure that this is the Governor’s position, the Politico e-mailed Palin’s office and received the following in return:
Meg Stapleton confirmed the governor’s position. “She absolutely agrees that there should be a special election,” Stapleton wrote. “Stepping down to hold the special election would be the right thing to do.”In the statement Palin was provided, Ruedrich said that “the only reason Mark Begich won the election in November is because a few thousand Alaskans thought that Sen. Ted Stevens was guilty of seven felonies.”
The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner has the following: Palin joins call for new Senate election after Stevens’ case dropped.
Clearly, this isn’t going to happen. For one thing, the DoJ’s decision to drop the case was not predicated on any acknowledgement of innocence on the part of Stevens. Rather, it was based primarily on AG Holder’s assessment that their had been prosecutorial misconduct that warranted addressing, amongst a few other factors.
While I will grant that the odds are good that had Stevens not been under indictment that he would have probably won the election, given that he came pretty close even under those circumstances. However, any given election, if re-run at some point down the line will have some very real probability of a different outcome, especially if the initial results were close. Turn out alone could determine such a change. Beyond that, it isn’t as if Alaskan voters didn’t have enough information to make an informed choice back in November.
This type of position by Governor Palin reinforces the notion that she isn’t a statesman or a leader, but rather focused very specifically on partisan success to the exclusion of reasonable behavior. She isn’t concerned about the dubious nature of such a move, the cost of a special election, nor the temporary denial of her state of a Senator. No, she is worried that a corrupt member of her party, who lucked out of seven convictions it would seem, should have an opportunity to return to office. Or, if we assume that Stevens wouldn’t run, she wants to give a member of her party a shot at winning back the seat.
The only logic to support such a position is partisan logic, and while I fully understand that there is a very real role for party competition for office and in party behavior in office, there does come a time when the focus should be governing.
Jon Henke at The Next Right writes in response to this situation:
A lot of people wonder who the next leaders of the Republican Party should be. I don’t know. But you know who it shouldn’t be? Anybody who thinks the current elected Senator from Alaska should resign so that the corrupt former Senator Ted Stevens can be brought back to the Senate.
Indeed. My guess is, however, that many in GOP circles will what they will perceive as Palin’s pro-party gumption. Still, perhaps I will be mistaken in that assessment.
Sphere: Related Content
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
But wait. Stevens had his election fair and square. He lost. I don’t see why a special election is needed. If the people of Alaska had faith that he didn’t do it, they would have voted for him anyway. Begich won far and square. Just being involved in a scandal like Stevens was, is enough to take away votes from him, regardless of what the supreme court says now.
God damn it. Ya know, I really had hopes for Sarah Palin when she first popped on the scene, but as time goes by the stuff that flies out of her mouth seems to get less and less rational and more ranty, hacky and, quite frankly, pretty damn annoying.
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
[...] want a do-over. [...]
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The more Palin talks, the more she damages her chances of being taken seriously in 2012 (or for that matter, her own gubernatorial re-election). Keep up the chatter, Sarah!
April 6th, 2009 at 9:28 am
What a ridiculous position! She continues to surprise me… and not at all in a positive way.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:57 am
How absurd a notion is this. So you’re telling me that a fairly elected senator should have to step down because his opponents corruption convictions were thrown out due to technicalities? I try to be fair in my criticisms of Gov. Palin, and avoid personal attacks. But if she truly dislikes the media’s morbid fascination on her freakshow of a political act, and really wants to give another shot at national office one day, she needs to stay quiet. If she really feels that the attention on her family is unfair (and it is unfair, though I place more blame on the Gov. for allowing it), then she would stop letting her family’s business be such public fodder; in other words, don’t have your office make a press release in regards to your teenage daughter’s baby daddy going on some talk show. It’s pathetic. I hope she somehow ends up winning the GOP nomination in 2012, and with the way the GOP has slanted so far to the extreme political right since obama’s election, I bet the hardliners who vote in primaries and straw polls have their way and send this laughingstock on a campaign. It’ll be a great time, especially for Democrats.