Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
This was a push of the "fundamentalist Christian" wing of the Republican party. When McCain was sewing up the nomination in February, they wanted to at least make sure that they had a true Christian conservative on the ticket. They quickly settled on Sarah Palin. She had all the right check marks in the right boxes: Strong Christian, rabidly pro-life, pro-gun, pushed to teach creationism in the public schools, and was a strong believer in Abstinence Only education. (Here daughter must have been asleep in class that day! Sorry, couldn't help myself).
Those of us who closely watch the Internet have seen the background talk about Ms. Palin coming up for the last six months. McCain even met her, at the insistence of several right wing Republicans and seems to have left pretty much unimpressed since he did not ask his staff to vet her at that time.
The main criticisms at that time included a total lack of experience. She did win a tough election in Alaska, but that's a state with less people than Charlotte, North Carolina, and probably not as diverse. Alaska also has no income tax or sales tax getting almost its entire state budget through oil concessions. It has so much money that Alaska actually returned to its residents over $1700 last year to each resident over 18 years of age. The governor's office in Alaska is not exactly a position that has to make hard budgetary decisions.
She also has done very little campaigning of fund raising outside of her own campaigns. She never spoke at Republican clubs, traveled very little outside of Alaska as governor, and was simply not considered any sort of rising star in the Republican party. Back in March, a few peopel compared the possibility of Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for Veep to Dan Quayle. Yet, despite the misgivings of McCain's campaign, the so-called Christian wing of the party kept pushing her as a true conservative who would be an asset in getting the Republican Base out.
It is hard to say why McCain decided to pick this woman. Maybe the polling numbers were getting to his head, and that he thought maybe the support of "the Republican base" would be enough to help his election. Maybe he started to believe all the blog talk of millions of women who were still mad that Clinton didn't get the nomination and who might vote for McCain if he did choose a woman as veep. But, it is absolutely obvious that this person was not vetted by the time McCain made his announcement.
Mrs. Palin is currently under investigation for abusing her power as governor. This investigation, no matter how you think it may go, simply won't be completed by November 4, so people will be going to the polls with the Ms. Palin still under investigation for abusing power. People have lost out to the vetting process over more minor issues. The Matanuska Maid Dairy incident was already well known. And, they certainly should have known that she campaigned for Gravina Island Bridge when they announced that she was actually against it.
Now, her husband's DWI arrest, her daughter's pregnancy, and her association with the Alaska Independence Party has come to light. All of this could have been discovered in a single day of the standard vetting process.
She was picked because the "Christian right" wanted her. They wanted her because she had all the right answers on all their big issues. It is apparent that this wing won't let such things as experience and competence get in the way of their ideology. They loved her because they loved the idea of Sarah Palin, and now McCain's campaign has to live with it.
Yours is a point which cuts to the heart of the matter. If McCain, as he claims, knew unwed 17-year-old Bristol Palin was pregnant, what does this say about his "family values" or concern for the well-being of children? He, far more than Sarah Palin, had to know that the media would find out and it would put her in the spotlight, however regrettable that may be. How was that going to be good for that child? Now it's reported by the AP that Levi Johnston, 18, the supposed father, is flying to Minnesota -- even after the Palins asked for their family's privacy be protected. What possible purpose can his attendance there serve, other than to further feed the media frenzy?
The more I think about the Palin family situation, the more it troubles me -- and I see a pattern here. I've heard a report about the oldest son and why he joined the Army -- which, at this stage is a rumor which I will not disseminate -- that, if true, is disturbing. An unwed teenage daughter being pregnant. Sarah's 10-hour flight from Texas to Alaska after her water broke -- which in some jurisdictions could jeopardize custody of the infant since it is so risky because the baby is deprived of nourishment while in the womb during that time period. Does any of this speak well of Palin's judgment or priorities? Is this a sign of a mother who puts the needs and care of her children first? How do I square the idea of "family values," at least as I understand them, with either campaigning around America with a four-month old special needs child or separating that child from his mother for the next two months?
Yes, careers of any kind pose difficulties for parents, both men and women, and being a parent does not necessarily preclude a career for either. Yet, someone has to raise the children. I'm sure some conservative will claim that liberals are being hypocritical with raising these issues, but I don't agree. A woman should have a right to choose on reproduction, should receive equal pay and treatment in the workplace, should not have the proverbial "glass ceiling" barring her from attaining any position she desires. The law should be clear on all of these points to ensure full equality.
Yet, seeking a career and having children are choices, ones which millions of women make, but within those choices are explicit responsibilities. Children have no choice; they rely on their parents to ensure proper care and development. I think liberals and conservatives can agree on this point: the needs of the child come first. Now, certainly, there are differences in family dynamics; some men are just as capable of raising a child as women, some of whom -- even if they devote themselves to the task -- are not effective mothers. There is no universal truth here. However, unless psychological studies are inherently sexist, do they not generally suggest that -- especially for young children -- a mother's care is vital? Again, millions of women are able to juggle a career with motherhood, and the assistance of a sound family structure can help in that regard (Hillary's "Village" comes to mind), but is there not a point at which -- regardless of what rights a woman has -- there is a personal responsibility to ensure that the professional ambitions of the mother are secondary to the needs of her children? While many families make this work, many others don't -- which is why there are so many at-risk children.
Of course, there are exceptions: single working mothers often do not have choices (which is why the neglect of Headstart and day care is a national disgrace), absentee or neglectful fathers are an abomination. I certainly don't subscribe to the theory that the only effective way to raise a child is through the "traditional" male hunter-woman nester relationship. Yet, ultimately, the proof is in the pudding; whatever the family dynamic, if one's children are in trouble, then a re-evaluation of priorities and corrective action is necessary.
I can't answer the question of whether Sarah Palin is or is not a "good" mother by the above criteria, nor is it fitting that I do so. But I can't help but believe that some of the decisions she has made do not represent those of someone who puts her children first, at least from what is publicly visible. Maybe being a Governor or Vice Presidential candidate is too much of a stretch, whereas being a professional broadcaster or mayor of Wasilla, Alaska -- careers which may not demand the same commitments of time and energy -- are more workable.
Okay, so my age is showing. I'm old-fashioned maybe in my concern for the well-being of children. All I know is that if I had to make the choice between my career and raising a child, it would be no contest.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
