Straw Woman

Constant Readers,

As you know, I usually write about local politics, but several people have asked me about my thoughts on Sarah Palin. You know, because Sarah and I both have "mommy parts"...and, really, there's nothing more local than that.

Like a man who is sent out to get a silver necklace from Tiffany in a turquoise box but comes home with a turquoise necklace from a silver-haired woman named Tiffany, McCain has brought us a vice-presidential candidate who is female but not exactly what we independent ladies were looking for.

Instead of the ERA, we got the NRA.

Instead of a book reader, we got a book banner.

Instead of Hillary Clinton (or even Olympia Snowe!) we got a woman who has spent her whole life chasing and using male attention, most recently crossing the fine line from beauty pageant contestant to taxidermy aficionado.

Instead of economics and foreign policy experience, we got someone for whom economic policy is foreign. Just what John "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should" McCain needed…

Remember him?

Why would he pick such an unqualified disaster?

To win women voters? Puh-lease. Women who love Palin were already going to vote for McCain. The rest of us can see that Palin's nomination does for women what Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court did for black people: nothing. Maybe worse.

Then why choose her?

So we'll sit around thinking of her daughter's virginity instead of the re-virginizing of the Republicans with their promises of promises of change after being in control for so long. So her husband's old DUI's will overshadow the drunken spending binge the Republicans have been on since 2003. So the crazy conservative love affair with Palin will dominate headlines freeing up McCain to woo independent voters.

Florence King once wrote that "familiarity doesn't breed contempt, it is contempt." And I have no doubt that, in time, the shine will wear off of Palin and she'll be added to history's list of unremarkable VP candidates. But the Republicans are banking on at least two months of this rodeo clown distracting the angry bull that is the American populace while they try to jump off and pretend they haven't been kicking us with spurs for eight years.

And so this is the first and last essay I will write about Palin because I, for one, will be advancing her the irrelevance promised by the passage of time.

As any hockey mom can tell you, we must keep our eye on the puck.

--Melissa

Comments

[vansmack]

I must hand it to the Republicans: While they've proven over the last 8 years how inept that are running a country, they are damn good at running a campaign.

And with that, I'm off to Ohio....

[Fredo]

"Like a man who is sent out to get a silver necklace from Tiffany in a turquoise box but comes home with a turquoise necklace from a silver-haired woman named Tiffany,"

That sentence may have justified the existence of the internet.

I so hope someone will photoshop Palin as a rodeo clown. Anyone?

[tangobaby]

This is SUCH a great post. I'm with Fredo, you got me with that sentence. So true.

[VenerableBede]

Well, I guess I'll be the one to take the heat.

First off, the article on her supposed banned book list even says she never banned books. So, your presumption that she's a book banner is just a taaaaaad misleading.

Second, the Clarence Thomas thing. What Justice Thomas and Palin have in common is that despite being a minority and a woman they aren't the right kind of minority and woman. It reminds me of William Weld's statement about why Jesse Helms wouldn't hold a hearing to confirm him as an ambassador: I'm not Jesse Helms' type of Republican.

Now, I certainly don't expect women to magically support Palin simply because she's a woman, and I don't begrudge the belief that this is a cynical pick by McCain, but I don't quite understand the derison from women's group against Palin.

And how conveniently we all forget that the Dems have had control of both houses of Congress for the last two years. Maybe y'all shouldn't have been so ambitious.

@Vansmack- methinks you might be bouncing between Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, if the latest polls are correct (Marc Ambinder thinks the numbers are too favorable towards Obama, i.e., possible Bradley Effect in action).

[Sweet Melissa]

@VenerableBede,
First off, I always know exactly what I am linking to, my dear. So I obviously read the article. What it said (and I have not read that it is disputed) is that she approached the Wisalia librarian and asked how to go about banning books. The implication of that is clear. (Even without the fact the the librarian almost lost her job.)

Second, I couldn't agree more that she's not the right kind of woman. Simply having the plumbing is not enough. Women in positions of power who hold distinctly bassackwards views do nothing to promote the status of women in general.

And how conveniently Republicans would have us forget that they ran the House and Senate from 1995 until 2007. And still do - by filibustering in the Senate. (Need 60 Dems for cloture and there are only 49 + 1 Independent Dem.)

And for the record, I'm Independent.

Thanks so much for you comment.

[VenerableBede]

According to numerous sources, she did not ask HOW to ban books, but how would the librarian react if someone petitioned for the removal of books. The librarian was not fired and, in fact, stayed on the job for another 3 years when she resigned. There were no books pulled, hidden or banned during that time, so far as the Alaska Library Association can determine.

Now, as Mayor, Palin asked for a resignation letter from all the heads of various departments across the city. . .which sounds vaguely familiar, no?

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/08/breaking_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

[Sweet Melissa]

According to Time Magazine: Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

[VenerableBede]

I by no means am trying to convince people to vote for McCain/Palin, but I simply want to correct these continued insinuations and untruths, in much the same way as I would expect people, including myself, to shout down the "secret Muslim" stories about Obama.

The very next paragraph from your article:

"St. George, however, points out that Palin couldn't have seen everything through an Evangelical lens. She did, he says, notably resist calls to restrict operating hours for the bars in town. And even if faith did play an unusually large role in her decision-making as mayor, it may have only reflected the continued rise of Evangelicalism in the valley, a growth that continues to this day."

Whether or not she sought to ban books, it's clear that no book banning occurred while she was Mayor, nor while she was Governor. The librarian was not fired, and, much like a new administration is expected to do, sought to place her people into positions under her control. Now there are slightly different views of the same issue from different news sources. The Anchorage Daily News article, as well as the article from the Wasilla paper from 1996 (which is the most original source), do not state that she asked HOW to go about banning (although I do think the Time article is fairly favorable towards Palin, especially towards the end). I realize that it's a nuance, but I still think your characterization is unfair.

And we can move on from here.

[Sweet Melissa]

@VenerableBede - I appreciate the restatement of your argument. I stand by the source and what I wrote. If she didn't have other extreme views (on abortion, for example) I'd be more inclined to believe she was "just being rhetorical".

And defending Palin is not the same as defending Obama, it is the same as defending Biden. A decidedly less important issue. People don't vote for VPs. They vote for Presidents. (Regardless of the possibility of the VP to be President.) Not since Kennedy-LBJ has the identity of a VP been a substantial factor in an election.

[Jamie]

Independent voters will figure Palin out soon ... and reject any notions of someone becoming President who'd like to shove her religious beliefs down Americans throats. She should head off to Tehran or something if she wants to live under a Theocracy. In the meanwhile, John McCain's inability to make politically convenient statements without nonverbally giving away he doesn't with what's coming out of his mouth proves to me he's much less of a man than what he used to be. Too bad people's thirsts to impress their daddy cuts up their integrity in these cases.

[Benjamin Wachs]

If I understand the Venerable Bede's comments correctly: Sarah Palin is not to be considered a book banner because she failed to actually get any books banned, much in the same way that someone who attempts murder is not a murderer ... only an attempted murderer.

How very reassuring. Thanks for clearing that up.

What the records clearly agree on is that Palin was the kind of loathsome politician who went out of her way to introduce "culture war" issues into a small town government that should have been focused on repairing the roads.

Turning neighbor against neighbor in the name of a religion that commands you to turn the other cheek is both an abomination and a waste of time. This country doesn't need another argument about abortion: we've got plenty. We need the economy fixed, schools fixed ... even the roads fixed.

But she preferred to run a divisive campaign that ignored the issues then, and she prefers to run a divisive campaign that ignores the issues now.

[vansmack]

Seriously, Venerable, for a guy who consistently points out that this is not the Republican party you elected in 2000 (despite me telling you that it was) and how the Social Conservatives ruined a great chance for the Republicans to really clean up government over the last 8 years, you sure are going out of your way to defend the new Evangelical appointment. Let it go. Your Maverick failed you. Again.

There is no Rhetorhical "How would you handle my request to ban books?" - you have more books than anybody I know and are by far one of my best read friends. The question alone should appall you.

And there is a HUGE difference between asking for someone's resignation and actually firing somebody. There's much less public outcry if you willingly resign...

[Kay]

You are, as always, impossibly eloquent. That said, the one thing Palin's done a good job on is taking a ton of attention away from Obama. "Oh, there's stuff going on? Never mind that, read about my massive amounts of personal drama instead!" She ain't boring...

[VenerableBede]

Ugh.

@Mr. Wachs- let us agree on nuance. You say she "failed to get any books banned," well, that's because there were no attempts to get any books banned, be it Harry Potter or Huck Finn, not by her and not by anyone.

@Vansmack- yes, there's a world of difference between being fired and resigning. . but resigning three years later?

@Melissa- and I stand by my sources. We will simply have to disagree on our interpretations and the reporting of our sources.

It's one thing to hold views you don't agree with, it's another thing entirely to put those views into practice. Let me put it this way: despite holding socially conservative view points on a number of social issues, as mayor and governor, she simply never made them part of her policy. She never got books banned, her first veto as governor was to veto a bill that would have denied benefits to gay couples, she supports safe sex teaching. To the extent that she is able to split her personal views from the way she governs (i.e., government should stay out of people's personal decisions), then that would be a huge step in the right direction, as that inability has been the source of my criticism of the take-over of the Republican Party by the right.

It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with her, but don't base it on half-truths and innuendo. If there was a record of banning books, I would certainly be among the first to come out against it. At this point all we have is a series of reports that are inconclusive, one way or the other.

I will close out this comment by quoting Camille Paglia:

"I am still waiting for substantive evidence that Sarah Palin is a dangerous extremist. I am perfectly willing to be convinced, but right now, she seems to be merely an optimistic pragmatist like Ronald Reagan, someone who pays lip service to religious piety without being in the least wedded to it."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html

[Be_Devine]

@Venerable - You said "her first veto as governor was to veto a bill that would have denied benefits to gay couples"

Whoa Whoa Whoa! Before you go awarding Palin the HRC Beauty Queen of the Year Award, why don't we look at the facts.

In 2005, Alaska's Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the state to deny benefits to domestic partners of state employees. The Court ordered the state to implement the ruling in 2006.

The right-wing Alaska Legislature passed a law in 2006 that would have prohibited the State from implementing the Supreme Court's decision. Palin was advised by her own staff that this law was patently unconstitutional and had to be vetoed. (Indeed, anyone who has taken a tenth grade government class knows that the Supreme Court has the last word on constitutional issues and cannot be overruled by the Legislative branch.) Her veto statement said that she was vetoing the law only because it was unconstitutional. She went on to say in her veto statement that "The governor's veto does not signal any change or modification to her disagreement with the action and order by the Alaska Supreme Court." She further stated that it was her intention to work to have the Supreme Court's decision overturned so that the state could deny benefits to domestic partners and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage could be maintained.

Eight days before Palin signed the veto, she had signed another bill that called for a special election to have an "advisory vote" regarding the Supreme Court's ruling. She stated that she believed that the voters should make an "advisory vote" to overturn the Supreme Court's decision and voters should state clearly that they want domestic partners to be denied benefits.

The special "advisory" election was held in 2007 (at a cost to the state of $1 million.) The voters narrowly sided with Palin's homophobic position on the issue and said that the government should deny benefits to domestic partners. However, because it was only an "advisory vote," it did not change the Supreme Court's decision and it had no effect whatsoever on the law.

It really seems that Palin supporters are forced to make their case for her with snapshots. That's probably because when you look at the full picture of any issue that she's involved in, she doesn't look so hot.

This veto issue shows not only that she Palin is a homophobe who uses her position of power as a bully pulpit, but it also shows that she's not fiscally conservative. After all, what fiscal conservative would demand that the state spend $1 million on an election that could not have any practical effect?

Nice try.

[lazthedog]

http://www.slate.com/id/2199536/

[VenerableBede]

@be_devine: thanks for the clarification. I was by no means attempting to give her a beauty queen award, although maxim did rank her as the 2nd hottest politician in the world.

And in my attempt to take a snapshot: she held an election, the results came in, and nothing changed.

Yes, that sounds like a waste of money, but then, some people actually want to know what the people think instead of letting "7 old men" tell them. But, that's neither here nor there, and I'm more than willing to let be_devine's post stand on its own on this matter at this time.

[Be_Devine]

"7 old men" (or, in fact, nine old men) have told us that African Americans are entitled to the same rights as whites. Public opinion strongly disagreed.

They also told us that the state could not prohibit two people of different races from marrying each other. Public opinion disagreed.

"7 old men" (plus two old women) told us that Texas could not put gay men in jail for having sex with each other. Public opinion in Texas disagreed.

They also told us that suspected criminals and prisoners have rights. They told us that even detainees in Guantanamo Bay have rights. You guessed it, public opinion disagreed.

I'd much prefer that my civil rights are not decided by popular vote, thank you very much.

[bimbosavant]

Nove you!
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/