But seriously now. McCain has seen Barack Obama's barrier-breaking candidacy and raised him another barrier-breaking candidacy. Or to make a more accurate poker analogy, he's flat-called. Alaska governor Sarah Palin would become the first female vice president if the Republicans win in November, which means that the Democrats no longer have solitary claim to to a potential "first." Either way, the U.S. will make history in this election.
Palin's nomination is fascinating for a ton of reasons. On one hand, it could be perceived as a cynical grab for disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, but Palin's a long way from Clinton. Her pro-life, pro-gun views are to the right of McCain's own, so this selection actually seems to be aimed more at conservative hardliners than independent female voters. McCain wasn't looking to bring more people into the tent - he was looking to pacify the people who were already in the tent but not convinced of his ability to keep it upright.
In pacifying the Moral Majority, however, McCain has chosen someone whose level of experience - she's been governor for less than two years - is even less impressive than Obama's. Nothing that hasn't been said a billion times elsewhere already, but the GOP's attacks on Obama's inexperience ring pretty hollow now. Although they've kept launching them during the first couple days of the RNC convention.
Oh, and then there's the whole thing about Palin's 17-year-old daughter being five months pregnant, courtesy of her 18-year-old boyfriend. In making the announcement, Palin was quick to express her support and to note that her daughter would have the baby and marry the boyfriend (does the NRA sell commemorative shotguns for these occasions?). All very well and consistent with her anti-abortion stance, although I wouldn't bet the beer money on Bristol and Levi having a long and happy future together.
However, Bristol Palin's pregnancy would seem to put the lie to another one of her mother's core beliefs - abstinence-only education. One has to assume that Bristol was told to save herself for marriage and was perhaps not well versed in the workings of condoms, etc.
And that raises another question, which is the real impetus for this post (aren't you glad we got to it eventually?). Pundits and politicians have debated whether the VP nominee's children, and specifically Bristol's pregnancy, are fair game for attack in an election campaign. Notably, Barack Obama has said it's off limits. I think he's wrong.
When a politician espouses one belief but his or her behaviour reflects something entirely different, that calls the character or judgement of that politician into question. Governor Palin would have kids learn only about the importance of keeping it in their pants, but her own daughter's situation suggests how hopeless and dangerous that belief is. Bristol is a living example of a failed policy idea, and the Democrats need to find a way of making this argument, although the focus has to be on the policy, not the person.
My feeling on this stems from my reaction to Dick Cheney's hypocrisy on gay rights. On one occasion, when interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Cheney responded to a question about the child being raised by his lesbian daughter and her partner. Cheney said Blitzer was "out of line" for asking how Cheney could square his support for his daughter with his administration's anti-gay views. Howlin' Wolf tried to press on with this very legitimate question, but got nowhere. And I'm still dying to know the answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment