There is much for a liberal like myself to oppose Palin. She supports abstinence only sex education, and actively opposes the alternatives. But as a historian, this caught my eye and made me cringe. During her run for the Governorship, she responded to a questionnaire about the issues:
1. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?I hope everyone realizes that the Pledge was written in the 1890s and the "under God" phrase was added in 1954. It wasn't "good enough for the Founders."
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
Sigh.
The McCain camp and even one of my friends claims that McCain had been looking hard at her for months, and that the vetting was sound and thorough. As ubub pointed out in an email, hat seems very hard to believe given all of the real distracting problems that have come up in the first couple of days. And, in fact, now we know that McCain is sending a team of lawyers to Alaska to, well, vet her. Seems backwards to me.
And the problems are many. By the way, the pregnant teenage daughter is not a problem for me because of the daughter. It seems bad judgement for parents who know about this, but still say yes to the McCain camp. However you slice this, that pregnancy would become news, and as Tony has noted on his blog, that girl is going to resent her parents for making her embarrassment a national issue. So, not about the pregnancy, but about judgement, Palin looks bad.
But the other, regular political problems are also an issue. She isn't the anti-earmark hawk McCain (and Palin) said she was. She was more than happy to take federal funds for the "bridge to nowhere" though she now says she said "no thank you." She is under investigation for an ethics violation, and while she was cooperating with that investigation, she has now used Alaska funds to hire a lawyer to dispute the investigation in full and is now avoiding a deposition. We also now find out that she was a director of Ted Steven's 527 (some had defended her experience and maverick standing by noting she had fought Ted Stevens or stood up to him). Just this year, she said she didn't know what the VP did on a daily basis, and she has demonstrated less than an informed understanding of the Iraq war. And more curious is her membership in an Alaska secession movement.
As Hilzoy noted:
The McCain campaign has been more than willing to question Obama's patriotism on the basis of nothing at all. Yet when asked about Sarah Palin's past membership in a secessionist party, "a McCain spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment."As I have tried to make clear from the beginning, this is not an attack on Palin personally. She may be a very nice and good person. But McCain did not vet her and made this decision in a slapdash manner. Some say that the first Presidential decision is picking a VP. Obama chose someone very smart who has extensive knowledge of foreign affairs and by all accounts knows how to govern--how to get stuff done. McCain picked an evangelical woman to play to his base and didn't even bother to check on her past issues. His judgement in this issue does not suggest a reasoned and intelligent choice, and I must say that I trust him even less when thinking of him making decisions about American national security.
At some point, the GOP is going to have to stop listening to Dobson and Land. But as Tony noted in the comments, many conservatives love Palin and refer to her as "God's woman for God's time." That confusion of the spiritual and the political is part of why we are on the end of a disastrous Bush presidency. At some point, perhaps Republicans are going to say "enough."
Sigh.
10 comments:
I spent Sunday and Monday offline and away from the TV, so catching up on all this stuff this morning has been like Christmas with no eggnog. It's a lot funnier than it was last week.
I try never to vote for anyone whose children aren't grown and out of the house. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their ability to serve in office, but it's the destructive preacher's kid dynamic multiplied by--well, thousands in the case of local representatives, and hundreds of millions in the case of presidential and VP candidates. I'm convinced that nobody who grows up under that kind of scrutiny turns out well without more painful self-examination than most people can bear without cracking.
Now I have to go back and figure where I dropped conversations in mid-thread...fun fun. :)
Of course, that would also describe Obama.
Yeah, that's my biggest hangup with voting for him (and I plan to)--it's less his youth than the youth of his kids. I'm not saying my hangup is reasonable; it's definitely not placing the good of the many above the good of the few.
Just checking. :)
I think Palin has thrown her daughter under the bus here.
And more curious is her membership in an Alaska secession movement.
The evidence seems scant at best and is starting more and more to look like the Daily Kos' 'reporting'. Palin has never claimed membership in the AIP and the only evidence appears to be a reference to where she met with the group when she was a mayor and claims from some of the group members that she was a member.
The Campaign has provided voter registration records that show she was a Republican during the time claimed where she was supposed to belong to this group.
Yet when asked about Sarah Palin's past membership in a secessionist party, "a McCain spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment."
They have responded:
Governor Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982," Rogers says, providing some voter registration documentation showing her to be a Republican. "As you know, if she changed her registration, there would have been some record of it. There isn’t."
Rogers says the McCain campaign provided ABC News with all the voter registration information that exists. Rogers says that Palin didn’t attend the AIP convention in 1994, "but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor."
She was more than happy to take federal funds for the "bridge to nowhere" though she now says she said "no thank you."
She initially supported the project, but when costs skyrocketed, she chose a lest costly alternative. This has never been a secret.
She is under investigation for an ethics violation, and while she was cooperating with that investigation, she has now used Alaska funds to hire a lawyer
So, this is what happens most of the time with elected officials. Detroit mayor, accused felon, and all around super corrupt guy, Kwame Kilpatrick (D) has spent millions of taxpayer funds in defense of his actions.
Steve, I don't know about the secessionist movement stuff. At this point, I will say that the McCain people have less credibility, but I am certainly willing to see what evidence is out there.
I think your take on her "bridge to nowhere" is a little kind. She is now saying that she said no to funding--all apart of McCain stressing his reformer cred. Of course, I don't think McCain himself voted against that funding, or got it stripped, but now we find out that Palin was accepting the money and telling people in that town that they "weren't nowhere." There is a credibility gap there. She didn't just look for alternatives, she flipped completely on this. Likewise, while she is supposedly against earmarks, she petitioned the Alaska delegation for millions in earmarks. I don't blame her as Governor or mayor. But don't then tell us how opposed you are to earmarks.
And the fact that Kilpatrick did it in no way makes it right. Nor the fact that other pols under investigation have done that. Especially, in this case where she is using her lawyer to obfuscate the investigation--one she initially had no problem with. But then she was not running for Veep.
Oh, and so far, it looks like it is Palin's husband who joined the party that wanted to secede from the nation. As a friend of mine quipped, the "Palin's love this country so much, they want to leave it."
I was just suggesting that when public officials need some kind of legal representation in reagrd to some act done in their official capacity it is usually paid for by the taxpayers. If it is a 'private matter', then they are on their own.
Especially, in this case where she is using her lawyer to obfuscate the investigation--one she initially had no problem with.
That is the job of the lawyer, not to obfuscate, but to act as an advocate for their client. I guess that is what I would do if I were her lawyer.
She didn't just look for alternatives, she flipped completely on this.
One of the articles seem to indicate that she was pushing for some less constly alternative. I don't always see that as flip flopping, but the compromise that is politics. For the record, I never jumped on the 'Kerry is a flip flopper' bandwagon.
I guess what I have read says that she was more than willing to take federal money to build that bridge. She certainly was open to and requesting earmarks from her delegation. Again, I understand that as an Alaska politician, but it is less understandable when she is trying to sell herself as an opponent of those same earmarks. McCain has the same problem. Bashes lobbyists, but hires them throughout his staff.
McCain has the same problem. Bashes lobbyists, but hires them throughout his staff.
True. Both parties seem to do this to some degree. Two of my friends are lobbyists, so I don't really have a negative view of them. Everyone uses them, so it is pretty stupid to say that you don't.
Post a Comment