Is Sarah Palin’s Family An Issue to Be Discussed?

Now I’ve heard the Obama campaign comes down hard against any criticism regarding the family of Sarah Palin. I have also read the opinions of others, including of those in the blogosphere, who think that this is holy ground that shall not be desecrated.

I think that Republicans just love it when we Democrats exhibit some humanity and our ever-popular tendency to keep to the high road. They love it because the high road has not felt the footfalls of a Republican for years and years.

Republicans have carved out their niche in the mud and they are very unapologetic about it. It works for them and has worked for them in the past.

For instance, Republicans, mainly southerners, are not above calling Barack Obama “uppity.” That word was actually used by Georgia Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland today to describe Obama. Other less crass Republicans substitute the codeword “elitist” when they refer to Obama or his wife.

John McCain owns eight houses, but Barack Obama is elitist.

And finally, earlier this year, in April, Kentucky Republican Rep. Geoff Davis (R) said this of Obama:

“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button. He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

Even in the 21st century, Republicans will utter racial slurs, the lowest form of demagoguery.

But Sarah Palin’s family is off limits.

Says who?

That Sarah Palin has had a child with Down syndrome, and she knew it would be afflicted with this disability, but chose not to have an abortion because of her religious beliefs is an issue. Now this was her choice to make. At least the state did not step in and say to her that she shall have an abortion because her child will be mentally and physically disabled. But here it is: the choice that Sarah Palin made is not something Sarah Palin wants to let any other woman have.

It is just as paternalistic for a government to demand a woman have an abortion as it is that they demand that she not have an abortion.

But McCain/Palin Republicans think that the government has a right to keep their hands on women’s uteruses, and if elected McCain will bring an end to legal abortion through Supreme Court appointments.

Governor Palin’s daughter is pregnant and unmarried. That is not an issue to discuss. What is at issue is that she may have been put in that position by a mother whose total contraception program is abstinence. Just say no. Sex education in the schools? No way, says Palin. Just say no.

What amazes me is that Palin’s own daughter is a poster child for just how poorly that contraception program goes over with teenagers with raging hormones, and this fact hasn’t fazed Palin at all.

And what about how Governor Palin receives the news that her dear daughter is pregnant by her 17-year old boyfriend? What about her sheer nonchalance when she made the “Bristol is pregnant” announcement praising her good sense? Doesn’t this send the wrong signal to millions of teenagers? Premarital sex, it seems, is good if you a) don’t use contraceptives b) carry the resultant fetus to full term, and c) marry the horny little b*$&ard who caused the whole mess.

Does Governor Palin know the statistics for teenage marriage? Marriage at the point of a shotgun?

This just goes beyond the pale. This is all about the judgment of a potential Vice-President of the United States. And by extension, it is all about the judgment of a potential President, the one who picked her out of the line-up.

No, I’m sorry, Sarah Palin’s family is a subject for discussion. Not for titillation, but as a means to arrive at a judgment of whether Sarah Palin is someone who is fit to serve in high office.

Who Do Republicans Want on the Obama Ticket?

I never listen to Democrats talk about who should be Barack Obama’s running mate. Democrats get too analytical about it. Which swing state do they want to flip for the Democrats? That state’s governor or senator is the obvious choice. Does Hillary Clinton bring more to the table than her negatives? What is Bill going to do when Hillary is Veeping? That’s just too darn many questions and trying to answer them doesn’t get you anywhere.

I noted early on that the McCain camp wanted to run against Hillary Clinton in the fall. It was obvious to me. It was obvious to lots of people. It was so obvious to Rush Limbaugh that he devised “Operation Chaos” in the primaries, inciting Republicans to cross the line and vote for Clinton in open primary states. Clinton, everyone said, “brings her negatives” to the front page, spurring Republicans to come out from under their rocks to vote against her.

Now Democrats are saying the same thing about Clinton if she were to be chosen to share the ticket with Barack Obama as his Vice President.

But the Republicans are not.

Listening to CNN this morning, with Wolf Blitzer firing questions at Senators Diane Feinstein (D - Calif) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R - Texas) I was amazed and taken aback at responses to whom each senator thought should be on the ticket. Well, not so amazed at Diane Feinstein’s answer. It is well known that Senator Feinstein favors the idea of having Clinton in the Vice President’s spot. What Kay Bailey said gave me pause.

Kay Bailey Hutchison suggested that Barack Obama wouldn’t want his brand to be tarnished by having Hillary Clinton on the ticket. If Barack Obama represents change and the future, said the senator in so many words, Hillary Clinton represents the past and the status quo. Barack Obama, according to Kay Bailey Hutchison, would be making a mistake by having Clinton on the ticket.

My guess is that this is the message that Republicans are going to be putting out there. My guess is that they have done the analysis, just as they did when Clinton was running for the nomination, and found that while Clinton’s negatives made her the opponent of choice in a presidential election, those very negatives now make her the least desirable opponent on the Democratic ticket. Or rather, her negatives are far outweighed by factors like being able to attract the votes of “hard-working white women”.

Republicans don’t want Hillary Clinton on the ticket. That has become obvious to me, too. Take a look at how the Wall Street Journal has weighed in. Not only do they not want Hillary Clinton on the ticket, they are delightfully obvious in their insinuation that if Obama were to pick Clinton, he would be seen as a weak, emasculated nominee who has been ridden hard and put away wet by the Clintons.

Now does all of that have a bearing on whom Barack Obama should pick as his Veep? It very well should.

Should he give Clinton the nod?

Not sayin’.

Not sayin’ because I agree with Obama when he says that this should be a slow and deliberate process. One that, at the end of the day, should yield the most correct result.

No, I’m not saying that Barack Obama should choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. Frankly, I find myself in close agreement with the words of Kay Bailey Hutchison on this. Now how’s that for irony?

No, I’m not saying that at all.

But the Republicans are saying it.

UPDATE: Now from what I read today in the news, the Republicans are not the only ones who think that a Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton ticket would be one difficult to beat in November. Apparently the GOP prognosticators agree with none other than Fidel Castro. And here I thought that my agreeing with Kay Bailey was ironic.

Yawn . . .Kay Bailey Hutchison MAY Run for Texas Guv

Yep, it’s a fact. Or not. Actually, according to Hutchison, who was recently interviewed last week by Peggy Fikac of the Houston Chronicle, the senior senator from Texas has absolutely no idea what she wants to do next.

Because she has spent quite a few years in public office, Hutchison thinks that she has not done as well financially as she could have, and, get this, is thinking about taking a job in “the private sector”.

When I hear about federal legislators taking jobs in the private sector, I see the word “Lobbyist” in my mind’s eye. But that is history because now, as I understand it, according to recently passed Senate ethics rules a former Senator will have to wait two years after leaving office before taking a job as a lobbyist. A congressman needs only wait one year.

So I guess that’s out. Let’s see, what other high dollar job opportunity could Hutchison try for? She has a law degree so there’s lawyering. But at 64 while she has a law degree, she has no actual experience being a lawyer, and not a lot of time to build up that experience that a high dollar lawyer needs. Outside of adding the name of a former senator to the list of law partners, Kay would be hard-pressed to add value to the firm.

So I’m kind of puzzled where she would find a place in the private sector.

But then there’s governor. Kay polls at about the 65% level across Texas. Nearly double the performance of Perry’s dismal 39%. Being a gubernatorial candidate is doable, I think. Doable, except by 2010 the demographic shift that has begun here in Red Texas will have run to completion and a Democrat will win the next gubernatorial election.

Nope, I agree with political scientist Larry Sabato and Royal Masset, a GOP consultant who, together, said this about Kay Bailey Hutchison’s political future:

“Say it's Hillary and Obama. I doubt the Republicans would want to put forward two white males.

“She's probably the most credible female we have in the nation.”

They have valid points. In putting up a mixed gender ticket Democrats are announcing to the world that they don’t anticipate the negativism of the past. Republicans will have to answer to their womenfolk. From what I have been hearing Republican women are attracted to a Hillary Clinton presidency.

So what does Kay Bailey Hutchison have to say about this possibility

“No. Nooooo. I do not want to be on the ticket for vice president ... I'm not interested in it. I don't want to be asked. There was a time when I thought maybe I would be interested in running for president but not now. I could never run for president with two 6-year-olds. I don't like the toughness and meanness of Washington. I'd rather do something different.”

Besides, Kay, a Republican in the White House in 2009 is not going to happen either.

So let’s see, Vice President and Governor are out, taking a high dollar job as a lawyer? Out. Lobbyist? Not until 2014. This doesn’t leave much to our former cheerleader senator from Texas. There’s hand modeling, but at 64 the hands probably have seen their better days.

Actually I have the perfect job for Kay. Want chips and a drink with that?

I Guess It Depends On What the Meaning of the Word “Or” Is

Dick Cheney stepped in a pile of cock-a-doodle when he ignored an executive order to provide information on his office’s classification and declassification activities. News of his failure to comply hit the airwaves late last week. But what became clear to me is that while this is all coming out just now with public revelation of a struggle that has been going on since 2004.

That struggle came to the public’s attention in a June 21, 2007 letter from Congressman Henry Waxman (D-California). The letter describes a 2004 incident when Cheney turned away onsite inspectors from the Information Security Oversight Office who notified him that they were coming by to conduct the executive order-mandated inspection.

Waxman brought to light a 2006 letter sent to the national archives in which Cheney insists that his office does not fall under the Executive Branch of government:

“According to a letter that the National Archives sent to your staff in June 2006, you asserted that the Office of the Vice President is not an ‘entity within the executive ranch’and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders.”

There’s all sorts of other good stuff in the letter, but I want to get to my point.

It all depends on what the meaning of “or” is.

Here is the entire 2003 Executive Order, I excepted a bit of it below.

“Sec. 5.1. Program Direction. (a) The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, under the direction of the Archivist and in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, shall issue such directives as are necessary to implement this order.”

Cheney’s claim is that his office is not an agency of the Executive Branch. However his power of classification of the nation’s secrets are specifically given to him in this same executive order.

“(cc) ‘Original classification authority’ means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, the Vice President in the performance of executive duties, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President, to classify information in the first instance.”

“the Vice President . . . or by agency heads . . .”

“Or” is meant here as a term of inclusion.

Actually I like this definition from Dictionary.com:

OR /ɔr/ Pronunciation Key
–noun
a Boolean operator that returns a positive result when either or both operands are positive.

In other words, "agency" and "Vice President" are on an equal footing here in terms of assigning classification authority.

So Cheney must choose whether he has classification authority or not because you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have classification authority without oversight. No can do.

Actually from what I am hearing today, in response to Cheney's denial that his office does not fall under the Executive Branch, there is a movement afoot to delete Vice President Cheney’s office from the General Government Appropriations Bill to be introduced this coming week. From The Raw Story:

“Following Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that his office is not a part of the executive branch of the US government, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) plans to introduce an amendment to the the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill to cut funding for Cheney's office.”

Chiding the VP, Rahm Emmanuel’s office sent over a reconfiguration of the federal government structure: The Government According to Cheney

In response to this, Cheney was heard to say “Neererng-neerng, #!&*@% you!”