There is always predictable political spin to any event. To see what people really think, one must examine indirect indicators.
Today, Senator John McCain tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for the vice-presidential end of the Republican ticket. Among Democratic supporters there was surprise and concern that that Palin would be able to appeal those female voters who perceive that Senator Barack Obama “dissed” Senator Hillary Clinton. Before the announcement, Conservatives were grudgingly and reluctantly coming to support McCain, mostly on the basis of their fear of the very liberal Obama. Largely resigned to a losing this fall, Conservatives were heartened by the addition of this attractive, articulate, vice-presidential candidate. It fun to watch the news once again. What would have been a predictable Republican Convention next week, will now be doubly energized.
Some say that this was a desperation “Hail Mary” pass in the last moments of the fourth quarter of a football game. This is the wrong sports analogy. The selection was more aptly described as “swinging for the fences” in a baseball game: an aggressive move, but not one motivated out of fear.
Governor Palin brings important attributes. She is socially Conservative, a mother of five (one of whom will be deployed to Iraq in September), with a lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association. She is pro-life and backed up her theoretical opposition to abortion with her recent decision to give birth to a child even though she knew that he would be challenged by Down’s Syndrome. She has a populist sensibility having rooted out corruption in Alaskan state government and decline the pork-barrel “bridge to nowhere.” Recently, when tax revenues to the state from oil companies operating in Alaska increased with the rise in oil prices, she returned the cash directly to the people of Alaska with individual checks.
Despite her many positives, there remain legitimate concerns. She has not been vetted on the national scene. Though she was surely carefully examined by McCain’s investigators, she has not been subject to the scrutiny of the national press extremely adept finding embarrassing personal histories. We may yet find an ugly skeleton in Palin’s so far a pretty clean closet. Although she acquitted herself well in her speech after having been selected by McCain and has articulately expressed her ideas on Washington interview programs, she has not faced a press as ferocious as the Washington one.
Palin has been a governor for a couple of years and can be faulted for her lack of her experience in international affairs. Hence lies a trap for the Democrats. She is a least as experienced as Obama and the more an issue is made of her inexperience, the easier it is to remind Americans of the paper thinness of Obama resume. Obama’s key executive experience is running a thus far successful political campaign. This certainly speaks well of Obama’s political acumen, but not necessary of his governing competence. Democrats will be wise to avoid criticism of Palin’s experience. If she is indeed too inexperienced, it will show in the coming weeks without Democrats having to draw attention to it.
Governor Palin’s first impression has been excellent. Her speech on behalf of Senator McCain in Dayton Ohio was confidently and persuasively delivered. Her direct appeal to woman voters was disarming and depressed previously confident Democrats. She, nonetheless, has many more challenges ahead. If, over the course of the time until the election, she appears to be in over her head, McCain’s pick will appear to be a patronizing and embarrassing one. The Republicans may stunted the growth of a future leader before she had a chance to flower. On the other hand, if she acquits herself well, McCain’s choice will seem inspired. Regardless of the outcome of the election, if she is seen to have helped the McCain candidacy she will be an important new Republican politician. At this point, the pick deserves a tentative, “Wow.”
Obama Obfuscation Tests Supporters
Sunday, August 24th, 2008In March of 2003, Barack Obama was state senator in Illinois dealing with the Illinois Born Alive Infact Protection Act (BAIPA). The key goal of the act was to make it an affirmative obligation to render conventional medical treatment to all children born, even if the birth was a consequence of an induced abortion. The act brushed against the ragged, politically dangerous edges of the pro-choice and pro-life movements.
One aim of pro-life advocates was to ensure that children born alive and completely separate from their mothers are not treated as medical waste, but accorded appropriate medical attention. Pro-lifers may want to prevent abortions, but there is a much broader constituency who would want to protect children already born. Testimony before Congress has reported cases where live children, the product of unsuccessful abortions, were unceremoniously disposed of rather than treated. The concern was clearly not just a theoretical one.
Pro-choice advocates were concerned that about the legal assertion of rights for babies that were theoretically pre-viable; though one might expect viability to change as a function of medical technology. Specifically, the Illinois BAIPA declared, “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.” The pro-choice community is perhaps rightly concerned that someone sometime in the future might ask the embarrassing question: How is a being a fully recognized human only moments after being excess tissue?
The legislative dilemma is how to reconcile the humanity of treating with medical respect babies born alive versus the concerns of the pro-choice community to avoid the legislative precedent of declaring babies born alive as persons. Obama and his Democratic colleagues implemented a compromise by adding a clause to the law that would effectively prevent the law’s use a precedent against abortion. Specifically they added:
Curiously, the record shows that Obama voted only for the amendment, but still voted against the bill. The problem is that Obama’s district was still sufficiently to the Left, that deviation from pro-choice purity, even at the cost of the maltreatment of born-live infants, would have had political costs. Either Obama believed that such infants do not deserve such protection or that the political costs of approving the bill were too high. The whole episode was hardly a “profile in courage.”
If this story became widely acknowledged, it would make Obama appear far out of the national mainstream on the issue of abortion. When asked about the vote in 2004, Obama claimed, according to the Chicago Tribune, that he voted against the state legislation but would have supported a similar federal bill because “the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that legalized abortion.” However, contrary to Obama’s assertion, the two bills are nearly identical. Obama knew they were nearly identical because he was chairman of the committee that amended the bill so that it would resemble its federal counterpart.
Rather that conceding the issue, Obama accused his pro-life critics of “lying” about his record. Finally, Obama’s campaign’s has conceded that the federal and state bills were near identical. The only way to reconcile his vote in Illinois against the BAIPA and his later claim that would have voted for the nearly identical federal act, is that in both cases he was acting in immediate political self-interest.
There is certainly room to argue about Obama’s first vote in Illinois, though it does depict him as part of the extreme pro-choice wing of the spectrum. However, there is no excuse to misrepresent his vote and worst to call others liars for disputing what turns out to be the facts of this case.
It is not surprising that this story has not been discussed much in the pro-Obama press, but the story is slowly emerging. One character test for Obama supporters is how do they deal with this report. The reactions can involve either be honesty, dishonesty, or deliberate self-deception
One honest reaction is to concede Obama’s serious mistake and consequent dishonesty, but still maintain their support given his overall record and ideology. However, this would tend to undermine the serious messiah complex of some Obama supporters.
The dishonest way is to continue to obfuscate the issue and to attack the veracity of opponents. This will undoubtedly be the reaction of political partisans.
Perhaps the most common way for Obama supporters to deal with the issue is denial. Rather than examine carefully the details of this serious vote and related dishonesty, they will just to avert their gaze. They will not take the time an effort to determine out the truth. It easier to believe that political enemies are after your candidate than to face an unpleasant truth.
A pro-life advocate, Jill Stanek, performed the difficult task of digging up many of the original documents some of which are linked to in this post.
Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | 1 Comment »