Monday, July 27, 2009


Imagine a politician who is elected to one office, then two years later loses in the Electoral College. Two years and seven months into the term of the first office, months after the loss, this politician resigns! Can you imagine such a "quitter" being elected POTUS in the next election? I'll bet you $20 it can happen.

Twenty-Dollar Bill (w/ Andrew Jackson Portrait)
You'd lose the bet.

Andrew Jackson resigned his US Senate seat on October 14, 1825, after two years, seven months, and ten days in that six-year term. For those keeping score, that’s a dozen days fewer than Sarah Palin served of her four-year term as Governor of Alaska. He won the 1828 election for President, the first to do so in the “Democratic Party” faction he formed from the “Democratic-Republican Party”. So the next time you hear a Democrat talk about a "quitter", remind them about Old Hickory.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]


  1. Palin is no quitter by any stretch of the imagination. She resigned in order to take the struggle to a completely different level. I don't know how many times I saw comments such as "we need her now, and can't wait until 2012." Well, she heard that call, and now she will be leading the fight to overturn the defeatist policies of 0bama and the far left.

  2. Even if she wasn't taking the fight to a new level, the Alinsky-ites had neutralized her effectiveness as Governor by forcing her to focus all of her time & attention on the flood of bogus "Ethics Complaints".

    Like Saul said: "Force them to follow their own Rules" - Sarah is a good person, so she had no choice but to fight for her good name and, eventually, realize that this system-manipulating tactic was destroying her ability/time/attention to govern her state.

    At that point, the good & true person that is Sarah Palin could ONLY step down, so that the office of the Governor could return to working for the good of her home.

    ...'cause that's how actual grown-ups roll.

  3. Counterargument: Jackson was one of the worst Presidents in history.


We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.