Sarah in Wonderland

Sarah in Wonderland

It seems incredible that the single nomination of a relatively unknown woman, governor of an enormous yet little populated state, who was mayor of a small town just a short while ago, could have had such a sweeping influence not only on her party but also on media perceptions of the presidential race. But John McCain's nomination of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate seems to have had generated a storm of popular interest, to the point where admirers and detractors alike call her “Hurricane Sarah.”

Trying to figure out just who Sarah Palin is, and what she stands for, much less how she might govern, is a bit like looking at someone in a fun house mirror. Every time you think you've focused on one aspect of the image, you realize that you're just seeing another distortion. To conservative women, especially white conservative women, Sarah Palin is the new Hilary Clinton, a “feminist” they can love because she's so “like them.” For conservative men, Palin seems to be the equivalent of the “trophy wife,” the vice-presidential arm-piece who makes an old and not very inspiring John McCain suddenly seem the man to be envied. And for women on the left who are used to having the “feminist” label to themselves, albeit at the price of being mocked as “feminazis,” Palin is a conundrum: a woman with ambition, drive, and charisma, but who also espouses policies and beliefs that most self-described feminists wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.

And then there are the women—of the left, right, and middle-- who don't necessarily want to judge Palin for her individual choices regarding work and family—but who find some of those choices disturbing, not just because Palin has a larger family than the norm but because she has a family with special needs running the gamut from the baby with Down's syndrome to the pregnant teen.

However, Sarah Palin does have a political record, if a brief one, and it tells a story of some interesting reversals and contradictions, especially if you hold it up against the image of Palin we see through the prism of her political handlers or left-wing bloggers or even her own convention speech.

I found it interesting that Anchorage Daily News columnist Michael Carey,who has followed Palin since she ran for governor, described her convention speech “very uncharacteristic” in it partisan attacks. In his judgment, these attacks on Democrats and particularly her attacks on Barack Obama were "probably inserted by some guys who think they're very smart and are from Washington.”

Noting that Palin's political battles in Alaska have been waged more within her own party than across part lines, he added: “People find... it hard to understand that her biggest problem in Alaska has been with the most conservative elite Republicans and with the oil industry. It hasn't been with the Democrats. She's worked well with the Democrats in the legislature. Legislation has passed that she wanted with their assistance, and it's crucial to her to have the Democrats up there,” (“Finding the Real Sarah Palin in her Convention Speech,” Weekend Edition Sunday, 9/7/08, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94365311).

Palin may compare herself to a “pitbull with lipstick,” but in fact her governing record on spending tax dollars has been less ideological than pragmatic. When it suited her interests to lobby for millions of dollars in earmarks, she did so, even as she now criticizes Obama for also engaging in earmark spending, something you'd be hard pressed to find any Congressperson not guilty of. The infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” to which Palin claims she said, “thanks but no thanks,” was in fact a bridge that she supported during her 2006 campaign for governor. She only formally rejected the project after Congress deleted wording specifying funds for the bridge and when it was a political dead horse (see Politifact.com http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/680/).

What voters may want to consider in thinking about Palin is not just the relative brevity of her tenure as governor (18 months), but the fact that she has been governing a state with a substantial surplus and no major crises. Apart from her success in negotiating with oil companies and getting a new gas pipeline, Governor Palin has undertaken no other policy initiatives. Ironically, one of her biggest detractors is Republican State Senate Leader Lyda Green, who said she thought it was a joke when someone called her to tell her that Palin had been selected as McCain's running mate. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" Green told The Anchorage Daily News (8/28/08 http://www.adn.com/politics/story/510249.htm). Green is also from Palin's hometown of Wasilla.

Finally, although Palin has been upfront about her pro-life ideology and open about her religious beliefs, she has yet to provide full disclosure of her views on the separation of church and state and to what extent her religious views will inform her public policy.

Many conservatives have condoned and even celebrated Palin's teenage daughter's choice to have her baby as palpable evidence of her pro-life credentials, even though the pregnancy also violates the conservative belief in abstinence before marriage.

But what does Palin think about teen pregnancy and public policy? Does she remain committed to abstinence only sex education in the face of this personal instance of its failure?

And what about her views of the Iraq war as a reflection of a divine plan? "Pray [for] our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country — that our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," Palin told the Wasilla Assembly of God this past June.

Some might wonder about how this view of U.S. military policy would play in international circles, particularly in Muslim countries where an explicitly Christian rhetoric evokes fears of age old Western assaults on Islam as President George W. Bush found out when he used the term “crusade” to describe the war.

Before voters assume they know who Sarah Palin is, they should be asking some hard questions about Palin's past and contrasting her record in Alaska with the new political makeover of Sarah Palin as Vice-Presidential messiah to the Republican party.

Dumped by the Democrats, or What have the Telecomms Got that I Ain't Got?

Dumped by the Democrats, or What have the Telecomms Got that I Ain't Got?

It's the fate of a progressive Democrat. You keep hoping this time your party is going to tie the knot and make all your dreams come true, and there you find yourself all alone at the chapel, jilted one more time as Democrats make nice with the Bush administration allegedly to court the “center” of the electorate.

Actually, I've never been that naïve about any political party, but it has been a hard slog these past eight years watching the Bush Administration and a Republican-controlled Congress eviscerate the regulatory authority of agencies from the EPA to NEA, try to deep-six any factual information about climate change, and wreak havoc with the Constitution, especially when it comes to Americans' civil liberties.

But I really feel betrayed by Democrats over the recent so-called “compromise” FISA legislation which is less “compromise” than “capitulation” by the one group of politicians progressives have supported through thick and thin, mostly thin, for the last eight years.

What is going on with the Democratic party? Here we have a piece of legislation that will tear the guts out of a law Democrats sought as a check on unbridled executive power when Nixon authorized the burglary of the Democratic National Headquarters that created the Watergate scandal. And yet Democrats are voluntarily lying down in front of this legislative steamroller, led by Representative Steny Hoyer, and Senators Pelosi and Reid, as if they had never heard of Nixon, Watergate, and have suffered collective amnesia about the Bush administration's repeated attempts to subvert constitutional checks on its power at every turn. Have they even read any of Bush's recent signing statements?

I hate to seem paranoid, but I can can only wonder what the telecommunications lobbyists have been up to on Capitol Hill lately. According to Wired, for example, “Top Verizon executives, including CEO Ivan Seidenberg and President Dennis Strigl, wrote personal checks to [Senator Jay] Rockefeller totaling $23,500 in March, 2007. Prior to that apparently coordinated flurry of 29 donations, only one of those executives had ever donated to Rockefeller (at least while working for Verizon),” (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html). Jay Rockefeller is one of the main proponents of the “compromise” legislation.

On the other side of the aisle, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has “dozens of lobbyists [with] political and financial ties to his presidential campaign — particularly from telecommunications companies, an industry he helps oversee in the Senate,” according to USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-23-mccainlobbyists_N.htm).

According to statistics compiled by MAPlight.org, Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave contributions averaging $8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for the telecommunications companies and $4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity. 88% of the Democrats who changed their position to support immunity(83 of 94 Democratic representatives) received PAC contributions from telecommunications companies affected by the proposed legislation during the last three years.

As the late Molly Ivins used to say, “It's not that they sell themselves that hurts, it's that they sell themselves so damned cheap.”

From the 69-28 vote in the Senate today, it's clear that Democrats really don't want to fight the administration any longer to protect Americans from whole-sale spying. Instead they've been buying into the Republican spin that we should protect and even thank these “patriotic” corporations for their assistance in the fight on terrorism. Oh sure, please read my email, listen into my phone calls – does anybody really care about unreasonable search and seizure anymore?

I wish I could still find words to convey a sense of outrage that this latest assault on the very values we once fought an empire over – the right to free from government intrusion on our lives – has now been turned on its head – and any resistance to government intrusion recast as “unpatriotic.” But frankly, I feel exhausted by the accumulation of eight years of being told we have to give up our civil liberties in order to be “safe” without anyone debating whether we really want to be safe at that price.

But I should remind Democrats that in an election when every vote counts, they may have sold their patriotism cheap. The same progressive anger that fueled the rise of internet political actions groups like MoveOn.org can easily turn off a significant portion of their base support if voters like me are so disgusted with their so-called compromise that we keep our money in our pockets and turn out as merely opponents of John McCain instead of partisans for Barack Obama. Change needs to mean something, and one of things it has to mean is a serious commitment to restoring Americans' civil liberties and putting real limits on executive power.