The Obama campaign and many in the media chorus have relentlessly criticized Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin's experience to try and show she is unfit to serve as Vice President. Initially, the Obama campaign had the temerity to completely ignore her Governorship and focus on her having been a mayor of a small town in Alaska. (She has been Governor of Alaska for two years.)
They have derided the very idea of a Governship as being a sign of fitness for office by pointing out that George Bush had been governor of Texas.What has escaped media attention is one can only compare apples to apples: there is a distinct difference even among Governors in their responsibilities and powers.
Texas has what is considered a weak governor model: the legislature has relatively strong powers compared to a Texas Governor.
In the case of Alaska, as pointed out in this Wall Street Journal editorial, the Governor has far greater responsibilities and powers than most governors in America. Thad Beyle, a political scientist, has maintained an index of "institutional powers" in state offices. He rates governships " on potential length of service, budgetary and appointment authority, veto power and other factors. Mr. Beyle's findings for 2008 rate Alaska at 4.1 on a scale of 5. The national average is 3.5.Only four other states -- Maryland, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia -- concentrate as much power in the Governor's office as Alaska does, and only one state (Massachusetts) concentrates more.
Palin has a line-item veto which she exercised constantly. Her state budget was $12 billion and she was responsible for 16,000 full-time state employees. She had many more duties and powers than most governors and certainly more than a "community organizer".
How did she do as one of the most powerful Governors?
Very well, thank you. She is ranked as the most popular state Governor in America.
Share