-
sponsorship
Barack Obama is going to wish he hadn't said this (via Politico):
Obama poked fun of McCain and Palin's new "change" mantra.
"You can put lipstick on a pig," he said as the crowd cheered. "It's still a pig."
-
sponsorship
Wow, so many arrows aimed at Sarah Palin today that I'm not sure I can catch them all! First, let me address Dahlia's post about fabricating records and the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. From everything I've read, it's more of an exaggeration than a fabrication. And what politician is not guilty of highlighting the more flattering parts of his or her record? Yes, Palin said she supported the bridge when she was running for governor. (I'm not sure it helps her that Ted Stevens, of all people, came out and said he thought she never supported it.) And yes, Congress had decided against federal funding for the bridge by the time Palin did anything about it (over the objections of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, it's worth pointing out). But Palin DID put the kibosh on the bridge as governor, saying that the ridicule would hurt the state and they'd find another way. And really, if it's a crime against feminism to fabricate your record, I'd call Palin's a misdemeanor while Hillary's tall tale of sniper fire in Bosnia more of a felony.
As to Melinda's point that Palin pre-emptively played the victim cards of "gender, class, and media bias," I think it's safe to say the media bias HAD set in by the time she delivered her speech in St. Paul, Minn. If you don't believe me, take David Carr's word for it in the NYT:
Before Gov. Sarah Palin came flying in from the wilds of Alaska for the Republican convention in St. Paul, there was a lot of sniggering in media rooms and satellite trucks about her beauty queen looks and rustic hobbies, and the suggestion that she was better suited to be a calendar model for a local auto body shop than a holder of the second-highest office in the land.
And Sally Quinn questioned Palin's ability to keep a demanding job while taking care of a special needs infant and a grandchild. (Is that a double whammy for gender bias and media bias?)
Finally, while Rosa has already addressed the issue of taxpayers paying for her children's travel expenses—and I agree the per-diem expenses are kind of sketchy—the fact remains that, as the Washington Post points out today, her travel expenses of $93,000 were quite a bit less than the $463,000 that the previous governor chalked up, presumably on that private jet that Palin sold on eBay.
If I've been surprised by anything since Palin joined the ticket—and like everyone else, I've been surprised by many things—it's my newfound understanding of the hard-core Hillary supporters, who clustered around her protectively as her campaign was falling apart. I have my own quarrels with Palin, and I'm quite confident that she can take care of herself (she does know how to field dress a moose, after all), but the more people go after her, the more I'm going to put aside those concerns and support her. Maybe that explains the poll about the white women moving toward McCain.
-
sponsorship
For those who want something other than dismal polls to pore over and need a dose of underisive pointy-headedness, check out the Web site Edge. Over there a so-called Reality Club of liberal social scientists and others is discussing a very interesting essay by University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt called "What Makes People Vote Republican." And the Republicans say elitists only sneer!
On the contrary, Haidt (author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom) argues that it's time liberals examined the self-righteous assumption that people vote Republican because they're narrow-minded and rigid. Perhaps there's something in the Republican moral vision that people prefer and that Democrats might learn from. "[M]orality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats ‘just don't get it,' this is the ‘it' to which they refer." XX fans might check out the response of one club member in particular, Berkeley psychologist Alison Gopnik (author of The Scientist in the Crib), which is especially apt in the Palin era. Gopnik writes about how liberals don't really know how to talk about the moral intuitions of child-rearing—the ethics of family caretaking—because those don't rest on individualist or universalist ideas. She points out that conservatives are confused, too, and urges joint thinking and talking.
It's all fascinating—yet also frustrating. Here's a club displaying the opposite of elitist condescension, yet in the process, they can't help opening themselves up to anti-elitist condescension. It might sound something like this: If you have to think this hard, you'll never really get it.
-
sponsorship
Both:
- Look confused when asked questions.
- Like to poop on the environment.
- Are good at following the commands of their handlers.
- Remain quiet on the birth control issue.
- Have extensive foreign policy experience.
-
sponsorship
For once, I find myself sympathizing with Sarah Palin. Today's Washington Post has a story on Palin's use of Alaska state funds as governor. Apparently she did two things the Post considers questionable. Charge No. 1: She accepted a state per diem while staying at her home in Wasilla (this was technically OK because her place of work is Juneau, but, uh, the per diem is supposed to cover expenses for meals, etc., while someone is traveling on official business and has to eat in restaurants and so on. The per diem is clearly not intended to cover someone's supermarket trips or trips to the diner when they're home or visiting relatives for the weekend. So, I agree: Palin should not have taken that per diem during days spent entirely at her own home.)
But charge No. 2 is different: Apparently, she often got the state to pay for her children's travel and hotel when she went places as governor.
I gave the article only a quick read, but I can't summon up a particle of outrage about charge No. 2. My feeling? a) We want women to serve in public office; b) Women often have these little appendages called "children"; c) Women (and men, too!) should not have to choose between serving the public and laying eyes on their children from time to time; d) If we want people with families to be able to serve as high-ranking public officials, and if we want to ask those high-ranking public officials to travel frequently as part of their jobs, then hell, yeah, we taxpayers should be willing to foot the bill for them to bring their kids along—perhaps not always, but certainly sometimes. It seems reasonable to have some controls on spending, but it also seems reasonable for Palin to feel that if she has to schlep all over the state (or the country), she should be able to bring her kids with her some of the time.
The alternative to taxpayers footing the bill for some of this? The only people who will serve in such public office will be the childless, those who don't care about their kids, and those rich enough to pay on their own. I'd rather contribute some of my tax dollars. Yes, even for Bristol.
UPDATE 5 pm: Yes, and I do think that everyone, not just governors, should have access to high quality and reasonably priced childcare-- and would be delighted to see my tax dollars go towards that. But meanwhile-- I also think any employer who is serious about attracting and retaining women should consider a) subsidizing for childcare if employees are expected to work long or "unusual" hours and b) paying for kids to travel sometimes if they require a great deal of travel from employees as part of the job. No, this doesn't mean unlimited subsidization-- as I said above, it seems reasonable to have some controls on spending (so the person with ten kids might be out of luck). But again, if we want women, who tend to have greater childcare responsibilities, to be able to pursue the same kind of careers as men, then yes, we need to make sure that work and parenting are not incompatible. And I'll gladly pay a little extra on April 15 to help make sure women (and men who take parenting seriously) will be willing to pursue careers in public office, too.
-
sponsorship
Emily, I think you are right that it’s always going to be a huge mistake to attack Sarah Palin for personal or family decisions—even if she is relentlessly cashing in on them. Images like this one don’t help, either. As Melinda observes, any references at all to Palin’s gender will net out to her benefit, even when the underlying criticism is valid. Let's not judge lest we be judged. So how do we thread this needle? What can we fairly scrutinize? Turns out that discussing her managerial mistakes and inexperience is going to be equally fraught; it’s patronizing to suggest she's unprepared. Perhaps the best place to focus, then, is on her fabrications—like the disproved claim that she opposed the “Bridge to Nowhere”—which the mainstream media now appears to understand despite its continued deployment by the McCain campaign.
The “new feminism” may include uncritical support for women who oppose teen pregnancy programs and for women who force rape victims to pay for their own rape kits. But I just don’t see where support for women who persist in fabricating their own records is a feminist principle.
-
sponsorship
Is it paranoid to look at this morning's papers and conclude that your national nightmare has come true, that the Palin magic has, in fact, bewitched the country? Let's look at the numbers. The new Washington Post/ABC poll shows McCain and Obama now in a dead heat, with most of the shift coming from white women defecting to McCain.
These are not Hillary voters. The poll finds that 78 percent of voters who wanted Clinton as president are now backing Obama.
So who are they, and what made them changed their minds? A brief tally to see if SP gets all the credit.
1. More voters now say the McCain ticket would do more to change government, and he is almost even with Obama on that question.
One point for SP. McCain hasn't won anything new on that front. His convention speech was standard Beltway bipartisan droning. She has the radical reform story, having taken down the Alaska establishment.
2. More people are calling themselves "very enthusiastic" about his presidency.
Again, SP. Cheerleader all the way. Go team!
3. More people now trust him on the domestic issues—the economy, social values, energy policy.
Again, I give credit to SP. Cindy McCain's personal narrative reeks of noblesse oblige—the charity work, the overseas adoption, addiction to painkillers, the $10,000 suits. These kinds of details don't resonate with the masses. Instead, it's what we (the evil media) see as SP's screw-ups that are clearly having an everywoman appeal. I, too, got accidentally pregnant, says the White Woman. My daughter is also a little sl__.
Social values? SP for sure. Even energy is the one issue on which she can claim expertise.
So, in conclusion: Sometimes it pays to be paranoid.
In the meantime, my favorite SP story of the day is the Washington Post's scooplet about her having billed the state for time spent at home. Apparently, she filed for per diem expenses, meant for travel, on days she was hanging around in Wasilla, including four days before she gave birth. This is the ultimate conflation of the personal and political and the ultimate confirmation of the Christian working mother's sense of entitlement that "mom" ranks equal as a job title.