Why Bristol Palin matters
Sep. 2nd, 2008 09:27 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsBristol Palin is a 17-year-old woman, apparently pregnant, apparently about to undergo a shotgun wedding with an equally young man, whose mother was recently nominated to be the Republican candidate for the vice presidency of the United States.
I avoided all weekend talking about the pregnancy stories that were circulating around the Internet. My own family has had its share of personal difficulties like this, some of it my own doing, and many families have weird, sad little stories like this one. The stories as they stood until Sunday were scurrilous and circumstantial. It didn't seem worth commenting on.
Here's why it's worth attention today, though: Sarah Palin, as a city councilwoman, as a mayor, and as a governor, fought to de-fund comprehensive sex education in the school districts over which she had authority. Palin thought that if there was to be sex education in schools, it should be abstinence only, but her strongest words were that such issues should be taught by parents in the home.
It may just have been coincidence: some girls are going to become pregnant at 17 no matter how hard the family and the school system try to teach them not to. Bristol may be one of those.
Yet it is striking how Sarah Palin seems to have failed her daughter: failed her as a parent, and as the head of government. Abstinence-only sex education doesn't work and yet Sarah Palin apparently believed in that for her schools and silence for her home.
When we look at John McCain, do we want to elect to the highest office in the land a man whose first major administration-affecting decision is a snap judgement to hire a woman who's own record of decision making is mediocre at best.
I avoided all weekend talking about the pregnancy stories that were circulating around the Internet. My own family has had its share of personal difficulties like this, some of it my own doing, and many families have weird, sad little stories like this one. The stories as they stood until Sunday were scurrilous and circumstantial. It didn't seem worth commenting on.
Here's why it's worth attention today, though: Sarah Palin, as a city councilwoman, as a mayor, and as a governor, fought to de-fund comprehensive sex education in the school districts over which she had authority. Palin thought that if there was to be sex education in schools, it should be abstinence only, but her strongest words were that such issues should be taught by parents in the home.
It may just have been coincidence: some girls are going to become pregnant at 17 no matter how hard the family and the school system try to teach them not to. Bristol may be one of those.
Yet it is striking how Sarah Palin seems to have failed her daughter: failed her as a parent, and as the head of government. Abstinence-only sex education doesn't work and yet Sarah Palin apparently believed in that for her schools and silence for her home.
When we look at John McCain, do we want to elect to the highest office in the land a man whose first major administration-affecting decision is a snap judgement to hire a woman who's own record of decision making is mediocre at best.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 05:48 pm (UTC)http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/republican_race/2008/09/01/2008-09-01_bristol_palins_pregnancy_was_an_open_sec.html
On his MySpace page, Johnston proudly declares: "I'm a f---in' redneck."
He's certainly proved that. He could have just got a mullet...
On the part where it asks about children, he wrote, "I don't want kids."
Shoulda used the condoms then, quiz kid. =};-3
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 06:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 02:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 06:09 pm (UTC)Shall we assume that you oppose Obama on similar grounds? After all, he sat and listened, and exposed his young daughters to, a preacher who was spewing insanely racist sermons for twenty years ...
And, of course, you must have opposed Bill Clinton. Do I really need to go into the repeated bad judgement he displayed in his personal life?
And Hillary Clinton. She married him, and stayed with him ...
Wow, you must take a lot of heat from Democrats for opposing all those people. You do oppose those people, right?
... or does character only count when it's a Republican under consideration?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 08:32 pm (UTC)McCain has shown poor PROFESSIONAL judgment in picking Palin. Anyone can make mistakes in their personal life; history is replete with examples of oversexed politicians from all parties.
However, to be a competent judge of other people's character is a critical attribute of being an effective President. The other two are the acting ability to lead the nation, and the stamina and fortitude to stand up to the stresses of four brutal years in office. My reluctant support for Obama is primarily based on his youth and flexibility in sharp contrast to McCain's lack of integrity, 71 year age, and closed-mindedness.
As for the critical attributes of VICE-Presidents, there are essentially three:
1) Be ready to assume continuity of government as a credible wartime leader, as part of America's nuclear deterrence.
2) Chair the Senate and keep in touch with Congress.
3) Faithfully represent the President at endless tedious social and ceremonial functions, occasionally meeting with groups the President wants to reach out to but politically cannot be seen with.
Palin is clearly, wildly and grossly unqualified to do (1) and (2) and McCain hasn't even talked to her enough to find out if she is capable of (3).
Palin has no military or command executive experience. If she had governed Alaska through a major disaster, I might rethink this point -- but you don't drop a newbie into World War III, in a world with depressed trajectory shots, fractional orbit bombardment systems and 120 second launch decisions. Picking her as a VP endangers the national security of the United States.
Palin has no legislative experience above the local government level. The Vice President is in a sort of super-Senator position, able to wield substantial influence in the Senate IF THEY KNOW THE ROPES. If not, the Senate can easily run rings around the VP. So Palin is useless in front of Congress.
Palin's views are so extreme compared to McCain's that one wonders if she will be a loose cannon or a fall girl. It occurs to me that her entire role may be to bow out (citing "family") immediately post election so that McCain can pick his own VP replacement and ram them through House and Senate approvals after safely "winning" the election. Arrogant but makes more sense than believing that Palin is a credible candidate on her own merits.
Looking forward to your usual personal attacks, baseless slander and tortured comparisons; over to you.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 10:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 11:05 pm (UTC)As Vice President, Palin would be President of the Senate. From Wikipedia: "As President of the Senate, the Vice President has two primary duties: to cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock and to preside over and certify the official vote count of the U.S. Electoral College." Informally, there's probably more to that position and, it's true that Biden, being a Senator, would likely interact with the Congress more comfortably. However, I would argue that there are more important considerations.
If you disagree with her views, that's fine. But to argue that she has insufficient executive experience when she has more than the Democrat's nominee for the top job is counterproductive.
I think Jordan's point has some validity. If a person exercises poor judgment in his or her personal life, it's true that it doesn't mean he or she will do so professionally, but it's very difficult to separate completely your personal life from your professional. And as far as Obama's professional judgment, well he was involved professionally with William Ayers and continues to defend him. I don't think I need to go into detail about who and what Ayers is.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 12:15 am (UTC)No, he is not a career military officer. He merely has a senior diplomat's experience at sending our soldiers and sailors in harm's way.
Obama is a much weaker Senator (3 years) than Biden, but his skills are also primarily legislative, with prior work in the Illinois state senate. Harvard Law grad. Community organizer and civil rights lawyer. http://obama.senate.gov/about/
Biden actually balances Obama nicely. Obama's not "qualified" -- he's a Believer and he has the essential quality of inspiring belief and hope in others.
You can't govern a country with the blame game. Look where Bush has gotten us using exactly that tactic.
Palin has less than two years as Governor of Alaska. This is an executive position but she is very new to it, and Alaska is truly a small state in the operational sense. (Big in land area, small in habitation.) Call it CEO of a 15,000 employee firm. By contrast, California has about 350,000 state employees.
Prior to that she did two terms on a city council and two terms as a local mayor. No advanced education (she holds a BA in journalism) or large body legislative experience. The 100 member Senate composed primarily of lifers is truly a step up from the 435 member House, which is itself much more complex than the state legislatures. http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html
Palin doesn't balance McCain. She doesn't have anything to contribute at that level. Expecting her to chair the Senate is simply absurd.
Comparing her experience to Obama or Biden is grossly unfair, like comparing a kitten to tigers. If Palin had COMMANDED the Guard in a crisis situation, that might be different . . . but in practice the state National Guards, while reporting to the governor, get their deployment orders through the DoD. Palin hasn't had to deal with a natural disaster, a crisis on the Pipeline, Russian troops getting frisky with the border or a nasty oil spill.
Obama will need a lot of help in a national military crisis. That's OK, we have a whole structure to ensure exactly that. It's the Vice President who might have to command from a single aircraft with a skeleton crew. Other countries have to believe that if they take out the President but miss the VP, they're in for a horrible thermonuclear pasting. Biden meets this requirement handily. He's actually MET most of the movers and shakers on this wide globe, and wields more foreign relations power than anyone but the Secretary of State.
Quoting Wikipedia is just sad. Go to primary sources and quote the Constitution. Tiebreaker vote in the Senate is not very helpful except on the tightest votes. Presiding over the vote count is now a minor administrative task. Informally, there's as much to VP in the Senate as the VP is willing to make it. A strong knowledge of the Senate's rules is very helpful. Biden has this.
A President who can't wire up Congress to do what he wants is a lame duck at best. The system was set up this way for a reason. Not all the signing statements in the world can change the fact that the President can do nothing constructive without swinging a majority in both houses.
Ironically, Biden might make a very good Presidential pick running Obama as HIS Vice President. However, the last thing this country needs is another career politician in the White House, and Biden is smart enough to know it.
>> William Ayers and continues to defend him. I don't think I need to go into detail about who and what Ayers is.
Interesting but absurd. Especially given that Obama was about eight years old when the Weathermen were active. In the most pejorative sense, Ayers is a reformed terrorist who was never caught at the time. We've got one on faculty at UC, Angela Davis. Compare to Oliver North perhaps?
I'm pleased to run into Jordan's backup and look forward to cordial disagreement with a superior light to heat ratio.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 03:21 am (UTC)I'm not sure that's a positive argument. If he's not "qualified" then how will he do his job? Or will he let those who he inspires do the job for him?
Call it CEO of a 15,000 employee firm. By contrast, California has about 350,000 state employees.
I've heard 25,000 and a budget of 12 billion dollars annually. Interestingly, Obama recently made the argument (which didn't answer the question that he was asked by Anderson Cooper, by the way) that his campaign had more employees and a larger budget than the town of Wasilla (he pronounced it "Wasilly") that Palin was mayor of. He conveniently omitted her experience as governor and the fact that running a campaign is the job of the campaign manager.
And I fail to see how California applies here since none of the candidates were ever the Governor of that state.
Palin hasn't had to deal with a natural disaster, a crisis on the Pipeline, Russian troops getting frisky with the border or a nasty oil spill.
And as Senators, neither have Obama nor Biden. Their job is to legislate, not react to crises.
Obama will need a lot of help in a national military crisis. That's OK, we have a whole structure to ensure exactly that.
This is correct. I think McCain will need less help, but I'm sure the structure you refer to will ensure he has it if he needs it.
Other countries have to believe that if they take out the President but miss the VP, they're in for a horrible thermonuclear pasting.
I find it very difficult to imagine a Democrat President or acting-President actually resorting to nuclear warfare. Nor a Republican for that matter unless we are actually attacked with nuclear weapons. Interestingly, the argument was made elsejournal (http://radarrider.livejournal.com/486118.html?thread=619750#t619750) that Palin is an "Armageddonist" and therefore more likely to "push the button" than Obama or Biden would be.
As for conventional warfare, only McCain has any military experience. Palin has a son on his way to Iraq so that may make her less likely to commit troops to a new conflict since she knows what families of those killed will lose. I do think that a Democrat would be less likely to commit to war, or to commit enough, but that is my opinion based on the events of the last decade. Ultimately, though, we just can't know whether any of the four will be up to it until and unless it actually happens.
Quoting Wikipedia is just sad.
And that is an ad hominem argument. You call it sad, I call it efficient. I also note that you do not say that it is inaccurate.
A strong knowledge of the Senate's rules is very helpful. Biden has this.
I will grant this.
A President who can't wire up Congress to do what he wants is a lame duck at best.
I don't recall the President's job being to get Congress to do what he wants. Sure, the President would like Congress to legislate in a way that supports his agenda but, in the end, it's his job to execute the law that Congress passes, whatever it is. Of course, if Obama is elected, he'll most likely have a very compliant Congress.
Continued in next comment as I've exceeded LJ's comment length limit.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 11:16 pm (UTC)President is one of those ultra high end positions in which you want to hire an angel or a saint, because no one merely human can measure up. The criticism that Obama is a lightweight is accurate.
>> Obama's not "qualified" -- he's a Believer
> Or will he let those who he inspires do the job for him?
Exactly.
My Alaska employee numbers were from a brief Web search. 15K or 25K, that's still a small company. Thanks to Big Oil, Alaska has bank (in fact, gives out refunds instead of a state income tax). That also means that they don't have the pressures to be as efficient.
Obama pointing out that his campaign is larger than Palin's home town is kind of a dig.
> And I fail to see how California applies here since none of the candidates were ever the Governor of that state.
Classically, Presidential candidates were picked from the "big Governor" pool, on the theory that running a big state is good practice for running the nation. The governors of New York, Texas and California are automatically short list if otherwise qualified. (The Governator is not US born, otherwise he would be a shoo-in.)
>> Palin hasn't had to deal with [crisis]
> And as Senators, neither have Obama nor Biden.
Obama, no. Biden, yes. As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, which oversees the State Department, our relations with the UN, and treaty negotiations. (See http://foreign.senate.gov/)
> I find it very difficult to imagine a [President] actually resorting to nuclear warfare . . . unless we are actually attacked with nuclear weapons.
Exactly! This is an unstable world where nuclear armed powers Don't Like Us.
> Palin is an "Armageddonist" and therefore more likely to "push the button"
Possible, but look at Reagan. A moderate degree of instability can be an asset in scaring the other side into prudence.
> As for conventional warfare, only McCain has any military experience.
Not sure that setting his own carrier on fire should be counted.
> Palin has a son on his way to Iraq so that may make her less likely to commit troops to a new conflict since she knows what families of those killed will lose.
I'll pay her the compliment of respecting her stated beliefs . . . she is willing to let her son die to defend freedom. I actually have more respect for that position, not less.
Our foreign policy changes every four years (Presidential election) so it's difficult to stay in a foreign war. This is by design; take it up with the Founding Fathers.
>> Quoting Wikipedia is just sad.
> And that is an ad hominem argument. You call it sad, I call it efficient. I also note that you do not say that it is inaccurate.
I've debated people who edited Wikipedia to make their points. Not as common now. I often use Wikipedia as a first-glance tool to orient myself to a new subject. That doesn't make it nearly as reliable as even secondary sources, let alone primary ones. With a great primary source available, why use Wikipedia?
>> A President who can't wire up Congress to do what he wants is a lame duck at best.
> I don't recall the President's job being to get Congress to do what he wants.
Lead the nation. The President needs Congressional approval to do all sorts of things, including confirm his own leadership team.
>> Sure, the President would like Congress to legislate in a way that supports his agenda but, in the end, it's his job to execute the law that Congress passes, whatever it is.
Not according to the Bush and Cheney crowd. Not according to Bush's "signing statements" which I feel are impeachable offenses on their face.
I don't recall Congress passing laws directing Bush to push us towards fascism.
> Of course, if Obama is elected, he'll most likely have a very compliant Congress.
Representing the will of the American people. Not a bad start -- if it goes that way. I'll settle for honest and fair elections with a wide margin of victory. We need the closure.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 08:01 pm (UTC)Okay, let me rephrase. They haven't had to direct operations during a crisis. Though as chairman of said committee, I would definitely expect Biden to have provided input and advice.
Not sure that setting his own carrier on fire should be counted.
What I am about to say, I do not say lightly. That is nothing short of a slanderous lie. Read up on the fire on the USS Forestal on July 29, 1969. McCain had nothing to do with it other than the possibility that his aircraft was the one struck by a missile that was accidentally fired from another aircraft due to a power surge.
Representing the will of the American people. Not a bad start -- if it goes that way.
Given that the current Congress enjoys single-digit approval ratings, lower even than President Bush, it's arguable that they represent the will of the people.
Ayers is not planting bombs. That's reformed enough.
He's unrepentant. He is proud of his actions. He wishes he had done more. I don't consider that reformed. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.
To claim that Obama is a terrorist because he admires Akers would be like claiming that a conservative is a traitor because he admires North.
I never said Obama is a terrorist. I certainly do not believe it. What I said is that his relationship and continued support of Ayers demonstrates, in my opinion, poor judgment.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 03:21 am (UTC)Interesting but absurd. Especially given that Obama was about eight years old when the Weathermen were active. In the most pejorative sense, Ayers is a reformed terrorist who was never caught at the time.
William Ayers is not reformed at all. Yes, he isn't currently engaging in terrorist activities and holds a tenured position at a liberal university, but he is absolutely unrepentant and maintains that they didn't do enough. It matters not how old Obama was at the time. He would have known Ayers' history and would have known his views at the time he launched his political career in Ayers' home.
We've got one on faculty at UC, Angela Davis.
This does not excuse Ayers' actions, nor does it have any bearing on how Obama's relationship with Ayers reflects on his judgment.
Compare to Oliver North perhaps?
This comparison fails utterly. Oliver North did not engage in terrorist activities against the United States. You can argue that what he did was wrong but the nature of his actions and the motivation behind them are completely different.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 11:31 pm (UTC)That Obama learned from Ayers is indisputable. That he therefore automatically agrees with Ayers, not so much. That he supports the same tactics as Ayers, emphatically not.
Even when Ayers was into illegal bombings, he targeted objects and operations rather than people. He claims to oppose terrorism on the basis that it is random in nature. He is nonetheless a reformed terrorist, as he once advocated violence to create political change and committed material acts in support of terror.
Oliver North broke Federal law. As a serving officer in the United States Marine Corps, he lied to Congress under oath, sold arms to an enemy of America to fund a movement that we publicly disclaimed knowledge of, shredded documents and generally ran amok. (Whether or not he also sold drugs is an open question.)
Selling arms to an enemy of America, especially otherwise unobtainable spare parts for advanced systems, strikes me as very close to treason. Nonetheless North is a hero of the conservative movement. Go figure.
I think that both men (Ayers and North) love America and during their careers were willing to break the law to do what they think was right, in the service of America. Both escaped punishment for their crimes. Both are unrepentant, and that is where I think I saw the commonality.
To claim that Obama is a terrorist because he admires Akers would be like claiming that a conservative is a traitor because he admires North. The terrorist-traitor linkage is one that I've been musing for a while and will ultimately end up as an LJ entry.
Thanks for your feedback. I enjoy honest debates.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 07:14 pm (UTC)Um... What makes you think she was McCain's FIRST call?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 07:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 03:19 am (UTC)I'm not sure that's a positive argument. If he's not "qualified" then how will he do his job? Or will he let those who he inspires do the job for him?
Call it CEO of a 15,000 employee firm. By contrast, California has about 350,000 state employees.
I've heard 25,000 and a budget of 12 billion dollars annually. Interestingly, Obama recently made the argument (which didn't answer the question that he was asked by Anderson Cooper, by the way) that his campaign had more employees and a larger budget than the town of Wasilla (he pronounced it "Wasilly") that Palin was mayor of. He conveniently omitted her experience as governor and the fact that running a campaign is the job of the campaign manager.
And I fail to see how California applies here since none of the candidates were ever the Governor of that state.
Palin hasn't had to deal with a natural disaster, a crisis on the Pipeline, Russian troops getting frisky with the border or a nasty oil spill.
And as Senators, neither have Obama nor Biden. Their job is to legislate, not react to crises.
Obama will need a lot of help in a national military crisis. That's OK, we have a whole structure to ensure exactly that.
This is correct. I think McCain will need less help, but I'm sure the structure you refer to will ensure he has it if he needs it.
Other countries have to believe that if they take out the President but miss the VP, they're in for a horrible thermonuclear pasting.
I find it very difficult to imagine a Democrat President or acting-President actually resorting to nuclear warfare. Nor a Republican for that matter unless we are actually attacked with nuclear weapons. Interestingly, the argument was made elsejournal (http://radarrider.livejournal.com/486118.html?thread=619750#t619750) that Palin is an "Armageddonist" and therefore more likely to "push the button" than Obama or Biden would be.
As for conventional warfare, only McCain has any military experience. Palin has a son on his way to Iraq so that may make her less likely to commit troops to a new conflict since she knows what families of those killed will lose. I do think that a Democrat would be less likely to commit to war, or to commit enough, but that is my opinion based on the events of the last decade. Ultimately, though, we just can't know whether any of the four will be up to it until and unless it actually happens.
Quoting Wikipedia is just sad.
And that is an ad hominem argument. You call it sad, I call it efficient. I also note that you do not say that it is inaccurate.
A strong knowledge of the Senate's rules is very helpful. Biden has this.
I will grant this.
A President who can't wire up Congress to do what he wants is a lame duck at best.
I don't recall the President's job being to get Congress to do what he wants. Sure, the President would like Congress to legislate in a way that supports his agenda but, in the end, it's his job to execute the law that Congress passes, whatever it is. Of course, if Obama is elected, he'll most likely have a very compliant Congress.
Continued in next comment....
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 03:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 05:52 am (UTC)You may disagree with her views towards sex education in schools (for the record, I do as well based on my understanding of them). However, you are assuming that she did not educate her daughter about all the options at home. After all you said yourself that "her strongest words were that such issues should be taught be parents in the home." This sounds to me like she's advocating parents' right to determine how their children are taught about sex.
Bristol is a living, thinking human being with her own desires and ability to make decisions. The only way her mother could have reduced the probability of her becoming pregnant would be to put her in a cage. She made an unwise choice but no amount of good parenting will ever prevent a child from ever doing so.
What's important is that, by choosing to have the child and not abort it, Bristol and the father are taking responsibility for their actions and the consequences thereof. They're walking the walk, not just talking the talk. Whether you agree with their decision or not, it is worthy of respect.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-03 05:53 am (UTC)The only way her mother could have reduced the probability of her becoming pregnant *to zero* would be to....