Month: September 2008

Truman’s Truth

"I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who’s hitting you? It’s about time that the people of America realized what the Republicans have been doing to them," – Harry Truman.

I should add that the many criticisms from the GOP and its flacks of my attempts to bring to light all aspects of Palin’s dreadful record and constant lies reminds me of Harry Truman’s dictum. I’m only airing the truth. It’s just that it feels like hell to the liars, Sarah Palin and John McCain.

The Open Book Question, III

A reader writes:

I think you do have one problem with your "open book" argument and here it is:

In 2008, in mid-September, we are not even allowed to ask questions about Palin’s real and actual life as a mother-as-governor? That notion is as absurd as the Palin candidacy itself, in my judgment.

I think it is fair for any politician to be asked almost any question, including how would they balance work and family life, etc. However, parenting questions, specifically, are never asked of a man in quite the same way: with an implied judgment that it must be impossible to balance work and family so you better give us a good answer about how exactly you’ll be able to do your job well while raising your kids. So by definition it is sexist to ask her this type of question, even though it is—technically—a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

Actually Charles Gibson brought this very question up:

GIBSON: Is it sexist for people to ask how can somebody manage a family of seven and the vice presidency? Is that a sexist question to ask?

PALIN: I don’t know.

I’m lucky to have been brought up in a family where gender has never been an issue. I’m a product of Title 9, also, where we had equality in schools that was just being ushered in with sports and with equal opportunity for education, all of my life.

I’m part of that generation, where that question is kind of irrelevant, because it’s accepted. Of course you can be the vice president and you can raise a family.

I’m the governor and I’m raising a family. I’ve been a mayor and have raised a family. I’ve owned a business and we’ve raised a family.

What people have asked me when I was — when I learned I was pregnant, "Gosh, how are you going to be the governor and have a baby in office, too," and I replied back then, as I would today, "I’ll do it the same way the other governors have done it when they’ve either had baby in office or raised a family." Granted, they’re men, but do it the same way that they do it.

GIBSON: When we posted this question on the Internet, we had 15,000 replies within 48 hours and every woman with young children struggles with this question, should I, how can I, will I be able to. And I’m curious to hear you talk just about how you’ve internalized that.

PALIN: Sure. And I understand what that struggle is, what those internal questions are. I’ve gone through the same thing over these 19 years from having my first born to today having a newborn. In these 19 years, a lot of circumstances have changed. I stayed home with my son until he was seven years old, had just worked part-time, until I got into full-time employment again when he was seven. I had that choice then and I’ve had choices, of course, along the way.

I don’t believe that raising questions about the way she brought up her children if those questions would not be asked a male candidate is legitimate. I do think factual questions about dates, times, and factual details about simple events in the family’s public life are fine. But I do think the challenges of rearing a child with Down Syndrome are legit. I mean: she appealed to other parents of children with special needs in her acceptance speech. Asking questions about that process – and how she has handled and is handling it – has to be fine.

The Open Book Question, II

A reader writes:

You have asked your readers to weigh in on whether, or to what extent, it is legitimate for journalists to report on the family lives of politicians, particularly those who in some way make affirmative use of their families in their campaign speeches and literature.  I think that to analyze this properly, a distinction has to be drawn between what matters are proper to report and what matters are proper to investigate.

If a journalist is given information about an alleged affair or scandalous material about a candidate’s sexual behavior, there should not even be a thought of reporting the allegations if they are not proven by a high standard–not quite proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but close, let’s call it "compelling" evidence.  Why?  The risk of error is too great, precisely because the allegation is scandalous. The less explosive the allegation, the fairer it is to report based on strong but not compelling evidence.  Reporters should be given broad leeway to investigate, however, in order to determine how clear the proof is of a rumor or an allegation.  In my view, reporting a scandalous rumor but noting that it only is a rumor is a cop out.  It’s poor journalism, because anyone can make up a rumor about anyone else and no one should be forced to give up their scarce campaign time to have to respond to or deny a report that is not grounded in real and substantial evidence.

But let’s say the evidence is compelling that a candidate has been unfaithful to his or her spouse or has engaged in scandalous but not illegal behavior (e.g., views internet porn or frequented strip clubs as an adult but before holding any office).  I do not think that the mere fact that the candidate engages in the usual amount of trotting out the spouse and kids should make reporting on that information justified.  There are gray areas about "the usual amount," but bringing the kids to major speeches and swearing-in ceremonies; putting pictures of them in campaign literature and on campaign Christmas cards; and other cheesy but common uses, should not mean that everything that undercuts the image of familial rectitude is fair game.

Where does that leave us with Palin?  I say leave the way she raises her children and her personal relationship with Todd alone; there is plenty to say about her lack of qualifications, her shallowness in responding to questions, her extreme positions on many issues, her support for brutal practices like aerial wolf hunting, and her dishonesty about her prior positions on global warming and the Bridge. The fact that she has obtained reimbursements for her children’s travel expenses is no excuse to report on her mothering skills; it is, however, a highly relevant fact to debunk the image she has tried to portray of herself as an exceptionally frugal governor who turns down the usual perks and privileges of office.

These are all good points. With her very public pregnancy and labor and the birth of Trig Palin, however, we are in new territory. I don’t believe that the way a newborn was displayed at the convention – and the obvious political and religious symbolism of deciding to go ahead with a Down Syndrome pregnancy as proof of your pro-life credentials – is the usual, formal presentation of a candidate’s family. It intersects with an issue of public policy and the question of abortion rights which are, of course, central to the McCain-Palin campaign. Part of their political message is directed at the Christianist base on this very question. In fact, that is obviously one reason Palin was selected. I don’t think it’s fair to do all this, give Trig his own web-page on the state website – and then refuse to even answer the press’s questions about the whole experience. I mean: Palin and her obstetrician, despite talking freely to the press in the past, refused to return the New York Times’ phone calls in what most saw as a puff-piece last Monday. Why? Is the NYT not deferent enough? 

Heckuva Job, Sarah

Palin really is Bush’s true heir in so many ways:

So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, [Palin] appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as one of her qualifications for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Does that not seem eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush’s appointment of Michael Brown to FEMA? Cronyism, debt, lies, religious fanaticism, and utter ignorance about foreign policy. You want another four years of Bush? McCain-Palin is the ticket.

Reading The Corner

I am being called "crazy" again. But no one at the Corner has the intellectual honesty to discuss the lies that the McCain camp has been putting out: specifically the lie that Obama funded sex education for kindergartners, the lie that Sarah Palin initially opposed the Bridge To Nowhere, the lie that she never requested earmarks for Alaska as governor, the lie that Palin visited the battlefield in Iraq, the lie that she didn’t use her public office to persecute a former relative, and on and on. You will read nothing about these glaring lies in the public record at National Review. But you will learn that I am insane.

What does that tell you?

The Open Book Question, Ctd.

Thanks for the e-mails. Feel free to write if you have something to add. Here’s one response:

I don’t think you’re wrong regarding anything you wrote, but, in focusing on Palin (Vice Presidential candidate), we run the risk of missing the real point: this is about McCain. Palin represents a massive flaw in McCain’s judgment and executive capabilities, and ignoring this in favor of playing rhetorical whack-a-mole with a know-nothing is neither robust nor inquisitive on the part of the media.

I am utterly convinced now that McCain picked Palin solely to act as a lightning rod for the media, to dodge responsibility for his smears and gaffes. In that respect alone, he demonstrated good sense. Continuing to give him what he wants here is no better than showing "deference" to Palin in order to score interviews.

I take the point. McCain’s lies are now as frequent and as obvious as Palin’s, and I will focus, as I have, on McCain’s dreadful cynicism, dishonor, and dishonesty. But I do think Palin’s record in its totality, including her family, is relevant in one very important respect. She is McCain’s first presidential-level decision. If he did not vet her in any real way, and if the vetting missed a critical fact about her, or if she was asked, as every vetted candidate is asked, whether there is anything potentially embarrassing out there about her and she said no, and that is not true, then the questions about her family life and public record matter.