Once a chartered jet arrived in Dayton, Ohio from Alaska, astute reporters, assuming the plane was NOT carrying 84-year recently indicted Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, broke the news that John McCain had chosen the first woman to ever serve on a Republican presidential ticket - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
The choice is obviously aimed at the women who supported Hillary and are wary of Obama, as well as the large groups of undecided Republican and Independent women. But, Palin is also a pick that panders to the most conservative in the Republican base - she came to national prominence in June when Rush Limbaugh touted her as his choice for GOP VP and even made a logo for the McCain/Palin ticket to use. And, as an astute friend noted, many of the conservative groups that had been holding out on McCain released statements today acting as if it were Christmas morning. Why all the excitement? Palin is about as anti-choice as they come, despite having a womb, and became a right wing media heroine after playing up the fact that she did not abort her son despite knowing he would be born with Downs Syndrome.
The Dems, for their part, are as happy as pigs in mud. Her incredible lack of experience completely takes that argument against Obama off the table, as they note that she is probably more likely to have to assume the office of President and has been the Mayor of a small town and governor for less than two years.
Senator Chuck Schumer, Hillary's fellow Senator from NY, had this to say about the Palin pick:
"It is a real role of the dice and shows how John McCain, Karl Rove et al realize what a strong position the Obama-Biden team and Democrats in general are in in this election. Certainly the choice of Palin puts to rest any argument about inexperience on the Democratic team and while Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling. I particularly look forward to the Biden-Palin debate in Missouri.”
4 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you or anyone who reads this likes the idea of trying to get Hillary to (graciously and politely, of course) challange Sarah Palin (maybe on Oprah?) to explain her position on sex ed, please contact me babayoung@juno.com
Our family (mom, dad, son (17)) watched the documentary via Netflix this evening. I was deeply moved by your passion, conflicts and support by your family. The film was an amazing story.
On reflection, I graduated high school in San Jose (what is now Silicon Valley) in 1977. In high school, we had rudimentary sex education - thankfully none of it was religion based. Our high school did allow students to attend classes from Planned Parenthood on campus if they chose to. My friends and I poured over a copy of "My Body, My Self". We all had gyn exams before we had sex - luckily, because it turned out a friend had a condition that would have led to uncontrolled bleeding during her first sexual experience if she hadn't seen a doctor first.
The only one of my friends who became pregnant during high school was a girl whose family was extremely disjointed: dad was a workaholic, completely absent from the home, mom envied the daughter's youth, partied on the weekends with her own friends, and frequently verbally abused the daughter. The daughter was "fat, stupid, and unlovable". As a result, the daughter became involved with a drug dealer, 6 years her senior, who thought birth control was too confining. The only support and love she felt was from this boyfriend, so she acquiesced to his demands and had unprotected sex. When the inevitable happened and she became pregnant (twice), it was either get an abortion or lose her family, boyfriend, and future.
Do I even need to mention that the parents were "good Christians"?
There was no one to support her and her unborn child (even if she had wanted it) through pregnancy, delivery, birth. Though her boyfriend was a dealer, she wasn't a user.
Sadly, I think that people see a "good churchgoing middle class family" and don't see that the parents fulfill the nominal aspects of leading a family by providing income, but fail to offer their children meaningful goals, appropriate supervision, and loving guidance.
How can people not understand that girls are pressured into unprotected sex to achieve status, approval, and the only thing they've ever seen defined as love?
It's really painful to think that the American educational experience has actually slid backwards in the last 40 years. We're not offering our kids state of the art medical information about their health and choices, but referring them to information that's over 2000 years old. I've seen books from the Victorian era (thanks, Archive.Org) that are more informative and helpful than the information teenagers receive today in the US. It's frankly sickening that we've regressed as a nation in providing the most vulnerable portion of our society with fewer choices.