The Soccer Mom Vote

Some wise words about this bailout

Now, why isn't she running for President?

It's not about her family until it's about your family.

Count me out of those women who are questioning whether Sarah Palin can or should campaign for VP because she has young children. I'm not sure being a hockey mom qualifies Palin to be VP, but it doesn't disqualify her either. As a working woman well-versed in the tongue-clucking of SAHMs, I maintain that how she and her husband manage their family is none our our business.

Ah, but didn't she make it our business by parading all those children in front the cameras at the GOP Convention?

No. Just about every politician does that. It's like proving they're human; that they're "just folks" whether or not it is an accurate portrayal. If the kids were to start making speeches in public, that would be a different matter.

What kind of mother would leave her family to campaign anyway?

Sometimes, you get a once in a lifetime opportunity - a now or never. I think most people would want to take it and ask for the support of their families. One could ask how Michael Phelp's sisters felt about rearranging their lives around his swim schedule, or the family of any figure skater who has to move to another state so the child with talent can be trained for the Olympics. Or the family of a father who needs to move for a job. Sometimes a dream or a talent requires sacrifice for others, and why should it be the mother who always sacrifices? Few people would ever ask a father to do the same.

But what about announcing Bristol's pregnancy and impending marriage?

Well, it wouldn't have been my choice, but if she hadn't said anything about it, the media would have sniffed out the story and run with it in an even more embarrassing manner. This way, the Palin family have the opportunity to frame the story as best they can. And while I feel a bit sorry for Bristol, 48 hours of media scrutiny is not going to ruin her life the way a teenaged marriage might.

But...

But Bristol's story becomes legitmate fodder for public discussion because it has implications for the way the rest of us run our own lives and stories. Sarah Palin has endorsed abstinence-only education, which has been declared a failure all over the country, and the results of which Bristol Palin will carry with her forever. Never mind Roe v. Wade, members of Sarah Palin's party want to restrict access to birth control even by adult, married, women whether by legislation or regulation. Her policies would have more of our daughters end up like Bristol.

It's one thing to be pro-life. It is another thing entirely to be against birth control. Chipping away at access to birth control is not truly about respecting life, it is about controlling and limiting the lives of women. The GOP can talk all they want about "protecting girls from exploitation and statutory rape" as a reason to limit birth control; but the simple fact is that teenagers will have sex, and unlike Levi Johnston, most boys will walk away.

They won't be saddled with a pregnancy, denied entrance to the National Honor Society, be prosecuted or forced to marry. They may be in the baby's life from time to time or even pay child support, but their career and life prospects won't be limited by the birth and care of a child. They won't spend their lives being labelled "gimme girls" and "welfare queens" when times are tough and they need extra support. 

The best and most life affirming way to combat this, is to empower young women; something the GOP, whether they are limiting birth control, fighting Title IX, or denying equal pay, has proven loath to do.

The Republican party talks a lot about the evils of government intervention, but they want to define what your family looks like and control the choices that you make. Too bad that Sarah Palin wants to make what's happened in her family, happen to yours.

I'm sorry too.

Where have all the good guys gone?

By now you've heard that New York Governor Elliot Spitzer issued an apology yesterday for behavior that "does not meet my or any standards of right and wrong."

I suppose we should be used to this. Getting caught in a sex scandal is becoming a rite of passage for the self-righteous. Somehow though, we believed that this guy was different. He presented himself as a crusader of sorts, pursuing Truth, Justice and the American Way. You know the drill. His manner, and of course his name, so invited comparisons with Elliot Ness that you could almost see the fedora.

It's not so much the sex, as it is the alleged hiding of money, disguising of transactions, and engaging in something he was prosecuting others for. It was the fact that this was so calculated. The irony is punishing. I'm not just disappointed, I feel like someone has died.

Having lived in both New Jersey and the Boston area, I'm no stranger to political corruption. I sort of accepted it as a way of life. Big Business would continue to have too much influence over our government and would continue to ride roughshod over its employees, its shareholders and in the case of the defense industry, a balanced budget. Writers like me would continue to point this out, try to effect some small change here and there, but that this was the way the world worked. Period.

Elliot Spitzer made me believe that it didn't have to be that way; that someone was really watching out for the little guy in a way that didn't involve protectionism, or socialism, or anything more drastic than enforcing existing laws. This was apparently too much for Big Business. It speaks volumes that a cheer went up on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange at the news of Spitzer's troubles.

But while Spitzer was making enemies, I was entertaining hopes that he might run for President someday; that there was still a good guy who could be a leader on the national stage. That there was someone to believe in.

I've been watching and participating in politics for a long time now, and I'm used to supporting and voting for flawed, multi-dimensional, candidates. I should have known that these expectations were too much to place on one man's shoulders. Yet, I hoped, until of course, it turned out to be too good to be true.

Just as Elliot Spitzer's public career has more than likely come to an end, so has my belief in good guys going into politics.

And that makes me very sorry.

I Can't Believe I'm Defending Mitt Romney

This isn't what I was planning on writing about this month, not what I promised. That post is coming, but this topic is so timely I couldn't resist.

I'm no fan of Mitt Romney. He was governor of my state for longer than I would have liked and his was the kind of term that finally broke the 16-year string of Republican governors in Massachusetts. Not only was he pretty ineffective, but he added insult to injury by flying around the country mocking his constituents while he was still in office. I've had a "Top 10 Reasons why Mitt Should Not be President" post brewing in my head for months, waiting for the right time. I'm probably not going to do that now, because these people are doing a fine job of it themselves (Important caveat: I'm wary of just about anyone who feels the need to use the phrase "for truth" in their title. Can you say "swiftboating?").

Opponent Rudy Guiliani last week castigated Romney for appointing a judge who later released Daniel Tavares at the end of a 16-year prison sentence he served for killing his own mother. Tavares fled to Washington State where he is now being held in the murders of a young couple. The kicker in this case is that days before he was due to be released, Tavares allegedly assulted prison guards and sent a letter threatening the life of Romney and other state officials. Here is a guy who clearly never wanted to be released in the first place. Unfortunately, no one seems to have spoken to the judge, Kathe Tuttman, about the situation, though I can't imagine what she'd say. This was one case in hundreds.  Probably the best available explanation for Tuttman's actions can be found here.

No doubt the Giuliani campaign intended that this case be Romney's Willie Horton, but the "tough-on-crime" mayor's efforts have fallen short. A governor cannot be held responsible for every decision an appointee makes after being approved for the job. Romney is no more to blame for this than Reagan is for some Sandra Day O'Connor's less conservative swing votes. When judges are appointed (and I do believe they should be appointed rather than elected; removal should be difficult, but not impossible), there is a certain element of trust involved along with the vetting. Judges are human, they make mistakes, hopefully most of them do not end as tragically as this one, sometimes the law ties their hands.

This is not Romney's first judge problem. The big one is even less of his own making. Justice Margaret Marshall (a co-author of the link above) was appointed by Paul Cellucci and will forever be linked with "gay marriage" (see, no one is blaming Cellucci for this). Her decision found that the Massachusetts Constitution did not allow for discrimination in marriage, that it "forbids the creation of second class citizens," and is "less tolerant [than the Federal Constitution] of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life."

Social conservatives running against Romney would like to pin this one on him as well, but as much as the governor might have liked Marshall to find discrimination in our Constitution, it simply wasn't there.

Giuliani meanwhile, seems to be redefining "law and order candidate" in ways that might evoke the names of Halliburton and Blackwater. Perhaps we should start asking serious questions about what security in Iraq, or anywhere else, might mean under a President Giuliani and how it might benefit his company and clients.

The squabbling between the two presumed front-runners has opened up the high road for Mike Huckabee who drove it with ease talking to George Stephanopolus on (video) ABC This Week. As of this writing, Huckabee leads the GOP in Iowa. I can only guess what this means, but I'm hoping that Iowa voters are looking at the shambles of the current administration, the antics of the two highest-profile candidates and thinking "What was that about honor and dignity, again?"

The League of Maternal Justice

If you haven't already learned about Facebook's deletion of photos of nursing mothers - on the grounds that they violate the site's terms of use - I really can't summarize it any better than this blogger already did.  While many of us have been writing about our bewilderment with Facebook's reasoning, he went a step further and corresponded directly with a Facebook representative about the situation.

As you might expect, this exchange shed little light on the subject.  Additionally, the situation is compounded by the presence of pro-anorexia groups that Facebook allows to remain intact.  Basically, bloggers have been asking "What gives?" with respect to the inconsistent application of the terms of use.

And now the rest of us are taking it a step further as well.  Behold, the League of Maternal Justice!

We're calling for bloggers - parents or not, lactating or not - to deactivate their Facebook accounts, and TELL FACEBOOK WHY.  Tell them that breastfeeding is nourishment, not obscenity.  Tell them that their inconsistent application of the terms of use will not be tolerated.

If, for some reason, you cannot deactivate your Facebook account purely on principle, you can still speak out against their policies and practices.  Write a post and put up a button - check the League of Maternal Justice for details.

But wait...there's more.  The Great Virtual Breast Fest of 2007, on Wednesday, October 10 - an online nurse-in.  Details to come later this week.

There are too many good reasons to breastfeed - and too many moms who are prejudiced against it for whatever reason - to let this issue slip past us.  Join the movement!

Censoring the troops

I've found that one thing unites bloggers from across political and ideological spectrums: if you decide to try and limit what someone can post on his/her blog, you're going to have bloggers on your back.  Turns out this holds true, even if -- and perhaps especially if -- the censor is the federal government.

Wired reported yesterday that, "The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer."  There is much concern that this directive could end blogging by men and women in uniform.  While blogging is still technically possible under this rule, the logistics of offering posts for review and then securing permission to post are so cumbersome that they'll squelch most, if not all soldier blogs.  The regulations also apply to civilian contractors and soldiers' families, making even e-mail messages about Susie's school play subject to scrutiny.

Political and personal blogs have erupted in response.  Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin reports the directives here with the comment "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!"   She follows with a round-up of responses from a number of military bloggers, one of whom raises the concern that this will "end up silencing pro-military and pro-victory voices." 

Perhaps the most passionate voice I found came from a blogging soldier himself, posting at A Soldier's Perspective:

"It does not distinguish between on-duty, off-duty, deployed, non-deployed, military computers, personal computers, etc. In effect, it dictates to me, my family, and my friends that they cannot send email or publish their own blogs regardless of content. So, technically, every time my wife wants to send an email, she needs to get permission from my commander or OPSEC officer beforehand. While the intent is geared towards the release of OPSEC-related material, the reality is that the regulation effectively targets EVERY form of electronic communication utilized by Soldiers AND their family members. Let me make something perfectly clear here: my wife understands OPSEC and understands what she can and cannot talk about. However, my wife does NOT work for the Army and CANNOT be forced to abide by some commander's guidance."

He continues:

"I don't believe that a person should have to choose between their civil rights and military service. People have this perception within and without the military that once you enlist you surrender those rights. That's simply not true. I never signed such a document. I will never sign such a document. I do realize that my rights are somewhat restrained based off of missions and knowledge. As a Libertarian, I refuse to ever surrender my rights. It's those rights that I'm fighting to protect in the military to begin with. I love my country and would never do anything that put it or its protectors in danger... But, I won't compromise my integrity or my rights for it.  Some things are even more important."

The attack on personal freedom aside, I'm concerned that these kinds of regulations will strain marriages and other relationships already suffering from extended deployments and difficulty communicating across time zones. 

Anyone out there directly affected by this as a spouse or family member of a soldier?  How is this playing out in the real world?