Quote:
Originally Posted by jediagh  A leader does not always have to be at the front leading the charge you know. A true leader does not look for fame and glory. Instead they do what is best for those they serve. If that means stepping down so that the state has a better chance of moving ahead then that is what is done. The hard choices are what they do when others are unwilling or not willing to give up the power.
Here you have a leader willing to give up her power as govenor so that the state does not have a lame duck govenor who won't get anything passed by her own party. Instead she opts to give her #2 the power to ensure that their ideas have a chance of passing. If that is not true, brilliant leadership then I'm not sure what is. She is sacraficing her own power to ensure the people get the best in Alaska.
Would you (all the readers) give up that power? Or would you stay in power like many of our politicans do because you are unwilling to give it up?
Absolute Power corrupts absolutely...
The longer you have power the more and more it corrupts you. |
So what was to stop her from serving the people who voted for her another year and change. THEN when her running for re-election would have mattered she could have used the "lame duck" gambit.