The Soccer Mom Vote

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.

Palin - The Ultimate Pander

So, wow! John McCain really hit a home run with his VP pick, no?

Seeking to snag the disappointed Hillary supporters, he picked a woman. He really thinks we're that shallow.

Needing to convince the religious right, he picked an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-stem-cell, evangelical who wants creationism taught in the public schools. She opposes abortions even for the victims of rape and incest.

Looking to shore up the Republican base, he picked a pro-gun, pro-oil, anti-environmentalist, who is suing the federal government for placing the polar bear on the threatened species list. She insists that human activities have no impact on climate change. To paraphrase my favorite line from John Kerry's campaign: What if we had a VP who believed in science?

Desperate to energize his campaign, he picked a 44 year old former beauty queen with less than two years in office. Sadly, the ploy might work, given the traditional demographic of McCain supporters. Pat Buchanan loves her, as does Rush Limbaugh, who calls her a babe. Um, eew. And then there's this bumpersticker already circulating on right-leaning websites. It should warm the heart of any woman in or seeking a leadership position who just wants to be taken seriously.

It does make you wonder why he passed over Kay Bailey Hutchison and Olympia Snowe for Palin. I thought Carly Fiorina might have been a good choice. What must she really be thinking?

When Sarah Palin was first introduced, I was truly intrigued, and hopeful, even if I'm not a McCain supporter.  The more I learn about her, the more I am concerned that she may be a disaster for women - win or lose. 

If she wins, and maybe even ascends to the Presidency, her beliefs and policies stand to set back women's freedom and their children's economic, environmental, and global security for decades.

If she loses, or has to step off the ticket because of her complicated family issues (I'm deliberately leaving it at that) she, and not Hillary Clinton will become the face of women running for higher office. It's been 24 years since Geraldine Ferraro's family finances sunk the Mondale campaign. I really hope we don't have to wait that long again.

In alarmingly short time, the Clintons' fabled bridge to the 21st century has been converted to a big ole bridge to nowhere. Perhaps Sarah Palin should have said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the McCain Campaign.

Governor Palin, I'm calling you out

When I first read about Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, I was intrigued.  She's one of only eight women running a state government, mothers five children, runs marathons, and manages to have approval ratings in the 90's.  As if that weren't enough, her name continues to be mentioned on the short-list of people being considered as McCain's vice-presidential nominee.  Regardless of whether you agree with her politics, you'd be an idiot not to be impressed by Gov. Palin's rise up the Republican ranks.

The 44-year-old governor gave birth to her fifth child in April.  Trig Paxson Van Palin was born in Alaska right after the governor returned from Texas, where she gave a luncheon keynote for an energy conference.  He made his arrival a month early, weighing in at 6 lbs, 2 ounces.

He also has a diagnosis of Down syndrome, a genetic condition caused by the presence of three -- rather than the typical two -- copies of chromosome 21.  By the family's report, Trig's condition was revealed during the fourth month of her pregnancy by prenatal genetic testing.  Both parents admit to being shocked and challenged by the news, but hold strong pro-life beliefs that made a termination of the pregnancy out of the question.  Like all parents, they view their son as precious and perfect and are willing to make whatever effort is necessary to help him reach his full potential.

Let me first say that I offer my sincere congratulations to the Palins on the birth of their son.  I am sure he is a joy and a blessing.

Further, I understand how this experience might have deepened the governor's pro-life convictions.  Her decision has not gone unnoticed -- the story has appeared on many pro-life websites and supportive comments from other parents of children with special needs have poured in.   While Gov. Palin's choice to continue her pregnancy was no doubt a personal one, it's given her incredible political power on this issue.  Vogue cover notwithstanding, say hello to the new poster child of pro-life politics.

Here's where I take issue with the governor: what about rallying around the health and educational needs of children with physical and cognitive disabilities? If there is going to be an issue that raising a son with special needs makes close to your heart, shouldn't it be more about the many years of his life, rather than the nine months of his prenatal development?

A recent study published by the Commonwealth Fund, a non-profit organization that specializes in health policy, ranked Alaska 42nd in measures of health care access, quality, costs, equity and health outcomes in children.  Included in the study were several indicators that related directly to children with special health care needs.  Of children aged 1-17 with an identified emotional, behavioral, or developmental problem, only 52% had received mental health care the last year (rank: 47).  For children with special health care needs needing referrals to specialty care, only 23% got them (rank: 32).  And while it doesn't apply specifically to children with special needs (but certainly affects their quality of care), only 38% of Alaskan children have a medical home (rank: 47).  Incidentally, all of these issues with access and quality of care exist despite the fact that Alaskans spend more out-of-pocket for health care than most Americans and have higher health insurance premiums.

Claiming the title of "pro-life" should obligate you to more than an end to abortion -- it should make you wish for and work for a high quality of life for the children who are already here.  By virtue of the family he was born to, Trig Palin will have access to high quality healthcare.  However, based on current data, his fellow generation of Alaskan children may not be so lucky.

Governor Palin, I have no doubt you'll take excellent care of your son.  Now, do what needs to be done for the rest of Alaska's kids.

[Photo: Jim Lavrakas, Anchorage Daily News]

   

Bye, Mitt!

There's a part of me that loves to say I told you so.

Long before Mitt Romney formally announced his Presidential bid, I was predicting he wouldn't make it to the final round.

Romney is the last in a series of GOP governors of Massachusetts who have tried to launch national careers from one of the most liberal states in the country. The only one who was even remotely successful was Paul Cellucci, the most doggedly punitive-minded of the bunch. For a short time he became Ambassador to Canada, leaving the likable, but hapless, Jane Swift in his place.

Fresh off the great Olympic Clean Up caper, Romney swept back into town, brushed Swift aside and became the Republican gubernatorial candidate.

I didn't vote for him, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. There's room in my politics for business-minded pragmatism. Of course, after all his pontificating about doing away with nepotism in state agencies, he installed all his own people wherever he could. They did the same power playing whole lotta nothing that the previous bunch had done. Ah, bureaucrats!

Romney's singular achievement, perhaps the only thing he really accomplished here, was the removal of former State Senate President Billy Bulger from his latest post as President of the University of Massachusetts. You see, Billy has a famous brother Whitey, and, for those of you not in New England, Whitey is on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list based on his Irish Mafia connections. Whitey disappeared from Boston years ago, he pops up around the world from time to time like an Elvis sighting. Billy claims not to know where Whitey is, so Mitt punished him by going after his job. In so doing, he deprived UMASS of the best fund raiser the institution had ever had. Thanks, Mitt! There's a feather in your cap.

When a concrete ceiling tile from one of our infamous Big Dig tunnels fell and crushed a motorist to death, Romney blamed the unions, he blamed the government transportation agency he had not been able to take over, and said absolutely nothing about the private companies involved, two of which were later criminally charged by our Democratic Attorney General (one reached a settlement with the State).

Romney is the only one of this crop of Presidential candidates whom I've actually met. I heard him speak at a State House conference on education. While he didn't engage in the blatant teacher-bashing that Cellucci was famous for, he talked predictably about achievement and accountability without ever acknowledging what deep cuts in local aid from the state had done to the schools in non-wealthy communities, and how difficult that made it for struggling schools to provide additional services to those kids who most needed academic support. He was utterly unconcerned about the issues we had come to the State House to discuss.

Mitt Romney personifies many of the reasons that, even though I am a registered Independent, I am rarely able to vote for a Republican. Privileged beyond my wildest dreams, they seem to have little or no empathy for those with fewer opportunities in life. Their connection to the middle class seems to rely solely in stirring up antipathy for those even less fortunate. Their sympathies lie with big business and its wealthy CEOs and shareholders at expense of everything and everyone else. They'd rather invest in prisons than public schools and their "solutions" seem to be similarly punitive in nature, all stick and no carrot.They lecture about values with no evidence of a conscience. It doesn't work for me.

Thankfully, even Republicans are starting to say that it doesn't work for them either (that's not counting those in the Bible Belt who felt Romney wasn't a real Christian). And while I struggle to figure out what "not conservative enough" means when referring to McCain, I am thankful that Mitt Romney, who was so unresponsive to his constituents to the point of mocking us on the campaign trail, has proven himself quite out of touch with the rest of the country as well.

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?"

Can Mike Huckabee be Elected President?

He's an ordained Southern Baptist Minister.  Baptists, for your information,  are not exactly rebels.  They don't drink, don't smoke, don't dance and don't run around.  What do they do?  If Huckabee is any indication, they are pro-life, pro-gun, pro-Israel, anti-IRS and anti-gay marriage.  This sounds strangely familiar. Yes, I'm sure I've heard that before...

How does he differ from George W. Bush? For one, he is more articulate than the current President and most of the Republican field.  He concisely states a position and then elaborates with a depth that makes him credible but still likable. 

Extremely confident in his abilities, he even makes appearances where few conservatives dare to go, including "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO.  Famously, when Maher asked him about an evolution question during a recent debate Huckabee said, "I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth.  Now how He did it, I don't know.  I thought the question was utterly silly to be asked in a Presidential debate.  None of us are running in order to be an eighth grade science teacher.  We are running to be President."  If you like that answer then Mike Huckabee is your guy in 2008.

However likable, however confident, however willing to use the word "silly" on national television, it's highly unlikely the former Arkansas governor will be elected to the highest office in the land.  He's too quirky.  He throws his support behind things like the Fair Tax which would effectively do away with the IRS.  He supports a National Smoking Ban (um, Mike, you may want to brush up on how REPUBLICANS feel about the FEDERAL government passing laws for their own good...I think it will be an eye-opener).  He's also received some grief in the conservative blogosphere for his programs in Arkansas that were labeled "nanny state" programs (i.e. Body Mass Indexes for every student and banning soft drinks from schools). 

Look, Huckabee seems like a terrific person.  I think most people, regardless of their political affiliation, would enjoy having dinner with him.  He's bright, funny and charming.  He's just not electable in 2008.  His platform is bogged down by obscure ideas and too saturated with his personal faith for him to be elected post-Bush II.  I like the guy, but he will make an early exit in the primary or my name's not Larry Craig.

Alas says the cynic

Clearly not known for eloquence of late, Senator (and one of many Presidential hopefuls) Joe Biden shared yet another insightful gem last week. The same man who told NBCs' Brian Williams that he could have the discipline required on the world stage gave yet another sound-bite hot potato days later.

Friday at South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn's fish fry, a major political event for Democratic presidential candidates, C-Span captured the moment which has since hit The Politico website and then all things touched by the AP wire. Biden, in reference to the President's expected veto of the Iraq funding bill, told a South Carolina voter that Congress should "shove it down his throat."

Now, I could meander through my reasons why I'm not against the war per se. I could tell you why I think this funding bill is a bad, bad idea. I could go through a litany of different things and yet, the truth is, for me, these simple five words have nothing to do with the issue and everything to do with the current state of politics.

Once upon a time I was naive enough to think that politicians could one day play nice in the sand box together. Over time, and honestly, not that long of a time span, they've worn me down. I'm normally a nice optimistic kind of girl - except when it comes to people who earn their jobs in a voting booth. My name is Sandy and I'm a political cynic.

I used to think that politicians worked together for the better of us all. That they strove for compromise. That they could sit together and find middle ground. I used to think even when they disagreed they could do so with respect - the sort of debate I'd want my kids to learn from.

I was ignorant back then.

The truth is politics is nasty and it's self-serving. The scary thing is it's getting worse.

I do think this bill is a bad idea. Then again I also think it's pandering to a nation of drive-thru junkies - myself included. Let me be honest. I am insanely jealous of people who live/work near a Starbucks with a drive-thru because frankly, those extra minutes getting out of my car to get my Venti skim-sugar-free-vanilla latte just kill me. Modern day America is impatient. We want what we want and we want it now. No, strike that. We wanted it yesterday. Victory in Iraq is no different.

We mourn the loss of life - we all do. My heart breaks with every headline. And yet, the truth is rushing out of there is not the answer. We're skittish with the nightmares of Vietnam and we're spoiled by the video-game style war of Desert Storm. In reality the evolution of a renewed country takes time and diligence. It takes patience. It takes sacrifice.

In reality, whether you agree with the war or not, the fact is we're there and we're committed. In reality, leaving because it's hard and it's scary means every man and woman -- every child -- that has died on Iraqi soil through today did so in vain. It means running so quickly we leave the door open to all sorts of undesirables to move in before the dust of our wake settles. It means telling the world we're too frightened to really commit to the fight. Its saying we can't handle the hard road and we'll crumble if they push us hard enough, often enough.

It's dangerous to leave. It's dangerous to stay....but in reality, it's MORE dangerous to leave.

We ought not to take up permanent residence in Baghdad. We ought to have a road map to the end game -- but that map can't simply lead to the nearest emergency exit because it's politically prudent in some election year. That, to me, is exactly what men like Biden are doing - it's pandering to the polls. It's giving a sound-bite to drag out at the primaries.

To me the end-game road map ought not to have a definitive end date attached to it. It should have a series of outcome scenarios. "We leave when objective a, b and c are at x% completion." or "We leave if y happens."  I don't know what those variables are. . .but I do know that no one, not even the best military strategist can throw a dart at a calender and pick those dates with accuracy.

Yet, deep down, even with all these opinions, I'm not surprised by the poll-pulse takers. I'm not even surprised that the populous seems to reward them for it. I'm now a cynic. I see Biden's comments for what they are - a misguided attempt to say "I saw the Gallup numbers today. I know what you want and I'm going to do what it takes to give it to you."  I'm cynical enough to know it's not going to change -- and beat down enough to almost not care.

Play that funky music white boy

Nothing amuses me quite like an uptight old guy trying to be cool.  I'm not sure whether to be impressed or horrified at the antics of Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove. You've got to see it to believe it. 

Hattip to Mari for this one.

Can America's Mayor become President?

I make no secret of my love for New York, nor of my admiration for Rudy Giuliani.  After he had to abandon his Senate campaign due to prostate cancer, I’m thrilled to see that he has continued to pursue his political ambitions and announced his presidential candidacy.

Although I didn’t move to New York until 2000, I began visiting as frequently as possible starting in 1995.  Over those five years, I observed from a tourist’s perspective how the city was changing.  Granted, I saw only a small fraction of the process in a very limited geographic area, but the changes were unmistakable.

His record in New York is irrefutable.  While his tactics have often come under fire – such as how he addressed homelessness – and he has been criticized for his unfaltering support of the NYPD even in the face of such tragedies as the assault on Abner Louima and the killing of Amadou Diallo, it remains clear that his leadership was at the heart of New York’s revitalization in the 1990s.  Both his record as mayor and his post-9/11 leadership have led to his unprecedented favorability across the country, despite the issues on which he differs from mainstream conservative views.

But can he become President?  Can he even win the Republican nomination?

While many of Giuliani’s social views (such as his pro-choice stance and his support of same-sex civil unions) mirror my own, many Republicans - by virtue of their religious beliefs – do not agree and could not support Giuliani as a candidate.  In spite of his favorability, as well as his openness regarding his views and his somewhat checkered past, I wonder how much damage the Religious Right could do to his campaign.

Unlike past candidates like Ross Perot and Steve Forbes, I think Giuliani’s previous political experience gives him sufficient credibility among voters and adequate preparation for effectively navigating the bureaucracy of our federal government.  New York didn’t change overnight; neither will our country.  And as many checks and balances exist in the government of our country’s largest city, even more are present in the workings of our federal government.

I’m pleased that the Republican candidates who have emerged thus far – John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani – are moderate in their views and have demonstrated an ability to work well with both sides of the aisle.  Of the three, I think Giuliani is the long-shot candidate.  And whether he captures the nomination and ultimately wins the presidency or not, I’m confident that he will continue as a strong voice in American politics.

Its beginning to look a lot like Primary Season

Psst. You. Yeah, you, the one eligible to vote in the Republican Primary. Listen, we have to talk. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you're not part of the 'problem' but, chances are you know someone who is. I figure if we can get on the same page we can start talking sense into the others.

First, let's get real for a minute. The way things look right now the Right is going to walk into the voting booth on The Big Day with two strikes against it right off the bat -- no hope of hitting one out of the park. (How many baseball analogies can one SoccerMom fit into one sentence? Can we tell someone is yearning for spring training?) There are those that are going to vote against anyone and anything in the Republican column simply because they've decided Bush is the devil incarnate, the war is a charade, and we've all been living in hell for the last 8 years. For the record, I am now rolling my eyes and scoffing at each of those statements. Yes. I am.

I'm not saying it's hopeless. I'm saying we have to be smart about this election. Folks, we need to ditch this idea that the platform is all that matters, no need to compromise on any issue big or small. We need to focus on finding someone who is actually electable -- and right now, it's not about pro-whatever. It's about moving to moderate. . .real moderate not just the make-pretend variety.

Let me give you an idea of what I'm talking about here. On December 19th the Washington Post ran an article talking about the hope and a prayer Rudy Giuliani might need to fly around on in order to hurdle the Primaries. The piece, written by Michael Powell and Chris Cillizza, quotes a lot of different party types. Including guys who say stuff like this:

"For us to nominate him, we have to say those issues are not really important to us [and] we care more about winning regardless of the philosophy of our candidate," GOP consultant Curt Anderson said. "I don't believe that a majority of Republican primary voters will make that choice."

And to me, that's scary. That's just handing the keys over to the other guys without even trying to keep it for yourself. Curt, this isn't the playground. It's politics. It *is* about winning. You can't do a thing about any issue important to you if you're not even on the playing field. (It's ok, go ahead and read the Post article. I'll wait. I've got to rouse up even more baseball cliches anyway.)

Oh, and because I know some of you voting in the other primary are still reading, let me assure you that we elephants are not alone in the party line problem. In fact, you've got an even scarier issue afoot, in my opinion. There are people, perhaps you know them, that are mulling a vote for a candidate (or two) simply because of gender or race. Now, I know that's not you. You clearly have an interest in real politics since you're bothering to read along the diatribes of we SoccerMoms. Yet, these "need to make a social statement" voters exist. And frankly, they scare me. It's not about what a person is -- it ought to be what he/she believes in. Want viable - vote yourself a candidate that has some substance beyond their outside appearance....and then talk it up.

All right, I'm going to assume my favorite pachyderm-lover is back having read the full text of the Post piece. So, look. I'm not telling you who to vote for (although if you've read my first post and this one closely enough you might take a decent educated guess where I'm leaning at the moment). I, frankly, am not sure I care exactly *who* you vote for in the state primary of your choosing as long as it's someone that can actually make the race competitive enough to have a legitimate chance at winning. (Unless, of course, you're a Democrat...then feel free to nominate Homer Simpson for President -- no Bush cracks, thank you.)