What’s so bad about lame ducks? It’s one of the many questions Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin raised when she stunned the political world with her announcement that she would soon be leaving office.

Once she decided not to run for re-election, she said: “I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks ... travel around the state, to the lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame-duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck and ‘milk it.’”

That’s quite an indictment of the elected executives in this country – most of whom are term-limited and likely to become lame ducks at some point in their careers, as Palin was in her second term as mayor of Wasilla. In Virginia, the governor achieves lame-duck status the minute he (and they have all been “he”) takes the oath because it’s one term and you’re out in the Old Dominion.

Only one U.S. president held that dubious distinction. Before he was elected in 1844, James K. Polk announced that he would only serve four years. Even so, historians consider him one of our most effective presidents – greatly increasing the size of the country by waging the Mexican War and annexing the Oregon territory. Polk also convinced Congress to enact free-trade legislation and create an independent treasury.