Sen. Murkowski: “Disappointed” Palin Is “Abandoning” State
July 4th, 2009, 11:05 AM EDT
Fellow Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski issued a one-sentence statement on the sudden resignation of her state’s governor.
“I am deeply disappointed that the Governor has decided to abandon the State and her constituents before her term has concluded.”
The press release from the senator went on to say that she was communicating via satellite and unavailable for further comment. The terseness of the comment resembles that of Murkowski’s December admonition to Palin to stay away from her senate seat remarking, “I can guarantee it would be a very tough election.” But it doesn’t seem as though the senate is Palin’s next destination. Stay tuned for the next shoe to drop.
Murkowski is probably still upset over Sarah defeating her father in the primary.
Sarah is not abandoning Alaska.
Did Clinton abandon Arkansas? Did Obama abandon his district?
EricG Reply:
July 4th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
So what office is Palin going into, Daddio?
Clinton & Obama went into the Presidency.
Palin is going into her house.
She is quitting her job and once again the ‘personal responsibility’ that conservatives accept among themselves becomes clear. They are fine with shirking your responsibilities as long as you are conservative doing it…
You’re hypocrisy is showing….
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
July 5th, 2009 at 2:12 am
I really don’t know for sure what her intentions are, but at least part of the reasoning was to be able to take better care of her family…and many many people find this responsibility more important than governing/politics. I don’t think it’s as simple as that, but if I had a job that was screwing with my ability to raise my family I’d hope that I would have the courage to quit.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Why are they so tense ? Palin and Murkowski ?
What is really going on ?
July 4th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
What did Murkowski expect from someone as self-absorbed as Palin?
July 4th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Sara Palin has disgraced herself … hopefully for the last time.
Shirking responsibility, “abandoning,” seems to be a common thread in the Republican Camp lately.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Murkowski has a reason to be upset. Her congressional position will be at stake.
No one attacks Chelsea in the media. Not even when she campaigned for Hillary and was in the public spotlight. Gee, wonder why?
Who will the media and Palin enemies attack now that she and family are not in Alaska’s capital? Would Clinton and Hillary endured the “slings of outrageous coverage” of their “family”?
This isn’t a matter of being Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Independent, GDI. Yellow journalism at its worst.
Should anyone’s family in the media spotlight be attacked so viciously? No. Never.
Palin’s a big girl. She will take care of all. I really cannot say I blame Sarah for putting her family first. Families are forever. Government postions are not.
July 4th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
“No one attacks Chelsea in the media”
Yeah….apparently you weren’t paying much attention during the Clinton years. You know…like when John McCain called a then adolescent Chelsea “ugly and that it looked like Janet Reno was her father”…and then they repeatedly talked about it in the media?!?!?!?
And what exactly would there have been for the media to say about Chelsea Clinton when she was campaigning for her mother? What did she do? Was there some kind of controversy surrounding her that I missed? I suppose they could have called her an elitist since she’s intelligent, well-educated and supports various humanitarian causes…..because it’s clear during the last election that conservatives somehow equate intelligence and a good education to elitism.
I’m assuming you’re referring to the way Palin’s daughter Bristol was talked about during the election. I certainly don’t agree with the things that were said about her and she should have not had to be subjected to those comments. But…at the same time, if I was Sarah Palin I think I would have expected some people not to be able to keep their mouth shut over a candidate who was against sex education (basically because she implied that if we didn’t live in a godless society and there was proper parental involvement than this wouldn’t be needed)…who then parades her pregnant, unwed, teenage daughter up on stage and all but points to her and says “here…here’s the proof that we stand for conservative family values…she didn’t abort it”!
Again, I completely agree that her daughter shouldn’t have been talked about like that. But…that being said, you and I both know that had someone like Chelsea Clinton been an unwed, pregnant, teenager…that people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter would still be calling her “some little whore” until this day.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:09 pm