August 30, 2008

Saturday morning and a rough night

I assume that this is all part of progress of therapy, but I had the worst night in over a week. It will get better, or at least that is what I keep telling myself. Meanwhile, my sympathy for those who battle pain on a daily basis grows.

One thing is clear about the McCain vp choice, they bumped Obama's excellent speech off the front pages, which was one of the things they wanted to do. Everyone is talking about Palin and trying to figure out who she is. Turns out she is quite attractive, and well-spoken. But she was also a Pat Buchanan supporter during his last run for office, and has said some really odd things of late. She doesn't really know what the VP does, for example, and she has no idea what our plan is for ending the war in Iraq. Good to know that McCain sees national security as so very important. We also learned that until last week, McCain had met her once and talked to her on the phone. She is also under investigation for ethics violation
The scandal concerns allegations that Palin's office improperly fired the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to remove Palin's ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper after his bitter divorce from Palin's sister. In addition to the legislature's investigation, the Alaska attorney general is also looking into the matter.
Not only that, but she then appointed a sexual harasser to replace the person she allegedly fired improperly. The Alaska AG is supposed to wrap up his investigation in early November.

I think this pick is unbelievably irresponsible. People will talk about Obama's inexperience, but he has, in the last year, mounted an impressive national campaign and defeated one of the strongest political machines in modern memory. Can anyone imagine Palin doing that? And while we can argue about the VP (is it important, is it not?) Obama clearly picked someone who can help him govern. Biden knows how to get things done, is widely admired for his knowledge of complex issues and his competent staff. McCain, in his seventies with some health problems, chose a completely unknown and untested person as his Vp. Which decision shows concern about long term? Which decision demonstrates a continuation of Bush's governing from the "gut?" Which decision reminds us of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS?

Oh, and this from Karl Rove when he thought Obama was going to pick Virginia governor Tim Kaine for veep:
With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he’s been a governor for three years, he’s been able but undistinguished. I don’t think people could really name a big, important thing that he’s done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to Richmond, Virginia, it’s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora, Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson, Nevada. It’s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I’m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States?
As I just noted on Tony's blog, I am sure Karl will sing a different tune for Palin. Her experience in a much smaller state with a tiny population will mean that she is actually more prepared than Obama. It must be nice to not have to worry about truth when you speak. (In fact, Tony has several posts on McCain's choice this morning if you are interested.)

The other part of this is the unbelievable cynicism of this pick. While Cindy McCain bashes Michelle Obama, and Republicans everywhere bash feminism and refuse to support equal pay, now we are supposed to look at Palin and take this seriously? Religious right organizations are all applauding, but they have done nothing to support a woman in this role. Why are people who use the term "feminazis" applauding a woman Veep pick?

Christine Wicker thinks that this support is thin:
"First off, a big chunk of Religious Right folks wouldn't let women lead prayer; they're sure not going to let a skirt lead the country.

Fundamentalists can prove that God wants women to be under the dominion of men with a whole slew of Bible verses. It's God first. Men second. Women and children last."
That may be true, but those same people also supposedly believe in honesty, humility, and some basic Biblical injunctions that might, just might mean that our country wouldn't torture. Those same people have proven to be the strongest support for Bush in the country--still a majority of conservative evangelicals give Bush thumbs up for his performance. I don't trust for a moment that their racism against Michelle and Barack will overpower any poorly positioned opposition to women in power. That opposition only refers to liberals like Hillary.

Can anyone imagine talking heads saying about Palin--as they did about Michelle Obama prior to her speech--that she needs to demonstrate her patriotism? The fact that those words were uttered about Michelle Obama should make us all ashamed. But Palin is white and pretty and conservative. Her patriotism is assumed.

None of this is helping my mood, my back, or my plummeting view of conservatives and evangelicals. Sigh.

19 comments:

LB said...

So who do you think MCCain should have picked as VP?

Streak said...

As I am sure you know, I am not cheering for McCain, but if he wins, I have to live with his leadership. Even if, as Bush did, he only cares to govern those who voted for him.

I have no idea who he should have picked, but my problem with this is less about who he picked than the process and reasoning for his pick.

Tony said...

I am confused. How can a lady who cans her own green beans, homeschools, tends her own garden, and care for her five children, one who is Down's while working fifteen hours in Washington? How is she becoming a hero to the right when she is willing to sacrifice what the right says they hold dear? This is more than a disconnect.

Streak said...

Oh Tony, it is really cute that you still expect consistency from the people who supported Bush. :)

steves said...

She is also under investigation for ethics violationThe scandal concerns allegations that Palin's office improperly fired the state's public safety commissioner because he refused to remove Palin's ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper after his bitter divorce from Palin's sister.

I vaguely recall when this incident happened. It was discussed by some Alaskan residents on another forum I belong to. Since I am tired (and feeling lazy), I will quote from comments I made over at my blog:

She is accused of dismissing (at-will employee) someone who, in her opinion, failed to adequately discipline state trooper Mike Wooten, who is her brother in law. He had threatened to kill her father, tasered his 11 year old stepson and was busted for poaching. His punishment was a 5 day paid suspension. Frankly, I fail to see why he should still be in law enforcement. FWIW, the Democrats that initiated the investigation have praised her for being so cooperative.

On the other matter:

Not only that, but she then appointed a sexual harasser to replace the person she allegedly fired improperly.

She states that she was aware of the reprimand in his file, but felt it was unsubstantiated. I have some professional and personal experience with employee reprimands. I do not know the exact process used in Alasks, but in many cases, the level of due process in reprimands is very inadequate. I have seen it be used to get rid of unpopular employees and also used to get revenge. In some cases, the information is fabricated. In almost all cases, the supervisor decides exactly what will go in the reprimand.

I am not saying he is not a sexual harasser, but rather there just isn't enough information to say he was.

How is she becoming a hero to the right when she is willing to sacrifice what the right says they hold dear?

She has a husband. He has been a stay at home dad for some time. While I am sure that some on the right will say child rearing is work for women, this is by no means a conservative requirement. Do you think it is?

Tony said...

She has a husband. He has been a stay at home dad for some time. While I am sure that some on the right will say child rearing is work for women, this is by no means a conservative requirement. Do you think it is?

I didn't say that it was, but to the point, I do not think it is. However, many religious conservatives are turning her into "God's woman for God's time" in spite of the patriarchal theology that they typically employ. I read enough religious and particularly SBC blogs to see this happening.

Many are laughing because the feminists are having a "hey-day" over McCain choosing this lady; it "grinds their gears" so to speak.

She is a conservative so this trumps whatever other theological tenets they say they hold dear; family values? Trading it in for the fifteen hour days of Washington. Homeschooling? Unless it is by proxy. Motherhood? She traded it in for a career. Homemaker? Her husband stays at home, so the Doug Phillips crowd's tummies are in a wretch, in case you didn't know.

But the feminist ideologies that bought Palin this opportunity are the same ideologies the religious right has been mocking and deriding, not the patriarchal theology they typically embrace. But only when it is expedient.

Streak said...

But the feminist ideologies that bought Palin this opportunity are the same ideologies the religious right has been mocking and deriding, not the patriarchal theology they typically embrace. But only when it is expedient.

Exactly, Tony. These same people absolutely hated Hillary--really not for her political actions, but because she dared to be a first lady who stepped out of the dutiful and submissive wife. The fact that they now trumpet Palin makes me a little ill.

If they had any consistency at all, there would be more than a little of: "hey, maybe feminism has been good after all. It gave women like Palin choices."

Right.

Tony said...

If I can make another observation, this really doesn't help McCain's "maverick" status. It just shows he is a crotchety old codger desperate to attract attention from himself. What better way than to enlist a pretty, vivacious, moose-hunting, marathon-running, well-spoken, former beauty queen?

steves said...

However, many religious conservatives are turning her into "God's woman for God's time" in spite of the patriarchal theology that they typically employ.

Then they are hypocrites and fools. I have never listened to the 'women should be this and men should be that' crowd, so I honeslty don't care what they have to say on this issue.

steves said...

If I can make another observation, this really doesn't help McCain's "maverick" status. It just shows he is a crotchety old codger desperate to attract attention from himself. What better way than to enlist a pretty, vivacious, moose-hunting, marathon-running, well-spoken, former beauty queen?

Maybe because I am becoming more of a curmudgeon, this just rubs me the wrong way. I have avoided Obama discussions on most conservative forums because they were more content to call names and spread unsubstantiated rumors. Now it seems that Palin's critics seem more content to focus on her appearance, participation in a pageant, and other stuff that has nothing to do with leadership. Over on my blog, we deleted some moron troll that made comments on Palin in a 3-way and linked to a "report" that her faked her pregnancy and that her baby is really the child of her 16 year old daughter.

leighton said...

My suspicion is that her interesting past and potential scandals (no idea if there's anything there that is legitimately bad, but Presidential candidates usually select running mates who are better at avoiding the appearance of impropriety) are such big news because the media has to say something about her, and there just doesn't seem to be anything else to talk about. Her record takes all of two minutes to exhaust. It's either give what may turn out to be excessive scrutiny to curious issues and risk descending into tabloid gossip, or start talking like me and fill their airtime with "Wait...he picked whom? Uh...what? Why? What was he thinking?"

Outright shock only holds viewers' attention for so long.

Tony said...

Well, then delete me, Steve. You ought to know by now I do my best not to make unsubstantiated statements. If I had not seen this running almost at meme status on the blogs (left and right, btw) I wouldn't even refer to it.

Is there anything in my previous comment that isn't fact? Does she not hunt moose? Is she not a former beauty queen? Is she not well-spoken? Has she not run marathons? Being pretty is subjective, so I can concede there.

The fact is people want to discuss something about this lady and her credentials, imo, aren't there. So what then is discussed? Why then did he pick her?

Drawing attention to Palin's looks or her desire to hunt is beside the point. The point is what this reveals about McCain and Republicans in general. How does such a choice for running mate affect McCain as maverick and the "straight talk express"? In my opinion, if McCain was so sold on his maverick status, he just ruined it.

Streak said...

Yeah, Tony, I am with you. Of course, I think he sacrificed his maverick persona the moment he hugged George Bush and then spoke at Liberty U.

steves said...

Well, then delete me, Steve.

Whoa, unless you were the anonymous poster, I was not planning on deleting anything you have said. Tony, I respect you and wouldn't delete one of your posts.

I think spending time discussing her looks and pageant background is somewhat lacking in substance, which up until the Palin nomination, I was really only hearing from the right.

McCain's maverick status was gone when he voted with Bush 90+% of the time.

Tony said...

Steve,

No way--not the anonymous poster. I haven't commented out at AtK too much and I wouldn't do anything that stupid nor of that caliber.

My response was that in your previous comment, it seemed as if you were equating my comment about McCain's maverick status with the comment from the anonymous poster at AtK. There seemed to be no break in your train of thought and that my remark about Palin's looks, etc. was on par with Palin in a three-way.

Terrible miscommunication there, on both our parts!

steves said...

My response was that in your previous comment, it seemed as if you were equating my comment about McCain's maverick status with the comment from the anonymous poster at AtK.

Apologies. I certainly did not mean that. Focusing on Palin's looks is annoying, but not near the same as posting unsubstantiated rumors. I was irritated and unfortunately let it get the best of me.

Tony said...

I was irritated and unfortunately let it get the best of me.

Happens to the best of us!

Doesn't it Streak? :-P

Streak said...

I was irritated and unfortunately let it get the best of me.

Happens to the best of us!

Doesn't it Streak? :-P


I have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh that.

:)

Wasp Jerky said...

Come debate time, Biden is going to eat her for breakfast.