On This Week w/George Stephanopoulos, George Will comments on Sarah Palin's speech (ea):
I've read it once, and seen it twice, and I still have no idea why she did this. In one phrase, she seemed to say this would help the nation -- it will free her up to help the nation; on the other hand, she says it's her family, which I understand. She's been fairly much impoverished by litigation that's hurt her family, and she may be weary of being referred to as, for example, "a retarded flight attendant" by one HBO comedian.
Be that as it may, the one [reason] that rings most hollow is that she doesn't want to put Alaska through the terror of having a lame duck governor. If she is just weary of it, one can understand that. Still, she made a contract with them to serve out her term, and she said -- in her own words -- she now is a quitter.
As Ed Morrissey wrote a few days ago, the lame-duck governor argument is the most confusing.
Bear in mind that the election isn’t next month but about 16 months from now, in November 2010. Using this logic, Palin should never have run for the first term unless she was willing to run for the second, and not run for either if she wasn’t willing (or legally able) to run for a third. Politicians don’t enter lame-duck status until their successor has already been elected and they’re running out the rest of the term. And all politicians become lame ducks at some point — and none of them quit just to avoid it.
