Skip to content

Heidi Simmons says we can’t criticize Sarah Palin

Heidi Simmons, the wife of our former Congressman, penned a letter to the Day, which I reproduce in full below:

Gov. Sarah Palin is a good choice and she makes good choices. Male politicians have been dictating areas unfamiliar to them a little bit too long.

I am writing about pregnancy. And I am writing about choices. Woman’s reproduction and a woman’s inherent lifelong responsibility to her child is really not anyone’s business but her own.

Let’s apply this philosophy to Sen. John McCain’s new vice presidential choice, Sarah Palin. She knew her baby had Down syndrome and she made a choice to have the baby. She believed her family unit could carry this lifelong responsibility. Good choice, Gov. Palin.

But, we are a country of labels. So instead of labeling her, Sarah Palin, pro-choice, we label her pro-life. We need to work on those bumper stickers. And we need a government that stays out of our home and our personal lives.

Let’s put aside the fact that Sarah Palin is a firm believer in a government that does not “[stay] out of our home and our personal lives”. That’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

Ms. Simmon’s argument rests on the premise that we should never criticize someone for the manner in which they exercise their rights, because to do so calls those rights into question. But in fact, that is not the case. We protect individual rights because we recognize that there are certain areas in which the government should not intrude, while at the same time recognizing that individuals will often abuse those rights. It is perfectly legitimate to draw conclusions about people by examining the way in which they use or abuse their rights. I am as close to a free speech absolutist as they come, but that doesn’t mean I’m not prepared to criticize people for the content of their speech or for choosing to speak in situations where they would best remain silent. I just don’t want the government telling that person what he or she can say, or when they can say it. I believe that a woman should have the ultimate right to decide whether or not to have an abortion or bear a baby, but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize that decision in individual instances.

In this particular case Ms. Simmons makes a peculiar argument. According to her Palin made the right choice by bringing a Down Syndrome child into the world because Palin decided that “her family unit could carry this lifelong responsibility”. Apparently that family unit included her 17 year old daughter, on whom the child was dumped three days after it was born, and who herself is now pregnant (perhaps, who knows, due to an act of rebellion at the approaching prospect of being saddled with caring for a special needs child not her own). I have always believed that it was the responsibility of the parents, not the “family unit” to raise a child. Put another way, it is the height of irresponsibility for Palin to decide, most likely without meaningful input from her children, to impose child rearing responsibilities on them. That would be the case even if the child were normal, but it is doubly the case for a child with special needs. With rights come responsibilities. Sarah Palin has exercised her rights, but has outsourced her responsibilities.

This tells me a lot about the kind of person she is, and I have a perfect right to draw conclusions, even if I am a male.

It’s an odd thing about Republicans. They are always more than ready to intrude into the lives of others (remember Terri Schiavo?) but when their own moral decisions are in question, suddenly discussion is off limits. Terri Schiavo and her husband were not running for anything, and their affairs really were private affairs. We are being asked to put Sarah Palin in line for the presidency, so she has made herself an issue. Since we apparently won’t be hearing much from her that’s unscripted, we can only draw conclusions from the data we have, including the choices she has made in an area in which she wishes to deny us choices.

A Distinction without a difference

In the legal biz we often distinguish between two sets of facts, in order to argue that the law should be applied in different ways to each. Oftentimes, while there may be a superficial dissimilarity between them, on a deeper level, there is none. The distinction is bogus, and we dismiss them as “distinctions without a difference”. Usually, but not always, the courts see through such arguments, and the lawyer who, often out of desperation, tries to use one ends up on the losing side.

Not so in politics, where distinctions without a difference are a trick of the trade, especially nowadays from the Republican side. Whether out of desperation or not, they are past masters at the art, and, so long as they can get away with it, they’ll keep it up. It is a subset of a tactic I described in another post-changing the subject from one they cannot defend to one in which the facts are murkier.

The latest example involves everyone’s favorite incompetent Republican candidate, Sarah Palin.

As we discussed earlier this morning, the McCain campaign has admitted that Sarah Palin attended the AIP’s 2000 Convention (as a “courtesy,” they maintain), but denies that she attended the group’s 1994 Convention.

You see, the second of these conventions was in Wasilla, when she was mayor, and how could the mayor of the town not put in appearance to say “Hi!” to the conventioneers? On the other hand, if she attended the 1994 convention, she did so as a private citizen, thus implying agreement with their goals. That’s a distinction. Even the diarist at Kos to whom I’ve linked appears to have fallen for the distinction somewhat. But is there really a difference?

The convention at issue involved a group of people who advocate breaking up the United States of America. Their founder had this to say about this country: “The fires of Hell are glaciers compared to my hate for the American government.”. Now, maybe that sort of talk is business as usual in Alaska, but I doubt that feelings are the same in the lower 48. Even the oft traduced Reverend Wright never said anything that inflammatory. Attending the AIP convention, even to say “Hi”, implies a certain comfort level with the objectives of the organization. Would Palin, for instance, have stopped by had NARAL held a convention in Wasilla? Should the mayor of Anytown, USA say “Hi” to a KKK convention, rather than rolling up the welcome mat?

I would submit that the distinction is without a difference. I would further submit that her Republican voter registration records prove nothing, one way or the other, about her level of sympathy with the goals of the AIP. After all, Joe Lieberman is still a registered Democrat. But what the evidence actually proves is pretty much irrelevant nowadays. All that matters is what the media consensus says that evidence proves, and that jury is out. Unfortunately, based on past performance, it’s not likely that the decision will make sense in light of the evidence.

Yet another Drinking Liberally coming up

How can we not have a good time Thursday night, 6:30 at the Bulkeley House on Bank Street in New London. We had a great convention, and the Republicans are disintegrating. One of our members can now completely relax; his worst fears have not been realized. Joe Lieberman was not the VP nominee. On the other hand, he was more right than any of us thought. Looks like Joe was in the running until the end. In fact, it looks like the mess they’re in is directly attributable to McCain hanging on to the hope that he’d be able to have his Joe by his side, whispering sweet nothings and correcting his mistakes.

In any event, don’t miss it. It should be fun.

They can dish it out…

But they can’t take it.

John McCain has cancelled an appearance on the Larry King Show because he is upset that Campbell Brown of CNN refused to let McCain spokeman Tucker Bounds spout talking points about Palin’s experience. She actually asked for facts. I posted an excerpt of the exchange yesterday. According to McCain, she was out of line for asking Bounds to put up or shut up. If McCain can’t stand that sort of heat he’s in trouble, because he’s not even anywhere near the kitchen yet.

P.O.W.

Yet another great Robert Greenwald film:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjsEs46C70[/youtube]

It is an amazing thing that an entire nation would feel it necessary to collectively agree that being a former POW is a plus for a presidential candidate. Isn’t a person with that history far more likely to have emotional scars that would make him or her less qualified to exercise the sound judgment that we have expected from presidents, present person occupying that post excepted? No one’s allowed to talk about what is, upon reflection, an obvious point. Rather than giving McCain extra points for his history, we should be demanding proof that he is psychologically stable.

Common Ground

Yet another question has been raised about Sarah Palin. It seems that she was a member of an Alaska splinter party that advocated secession. The “don’t call [themselves] Americans, [the] are Alaskans”. More than likely they’re tired of living off the dole on funds sent North from the lower 48. It is not unprecedented for candidates for President or Vice-President to advocate disunion, though the last time it happened the candidates in question were seeking to run the Confederate States of America. The motto of the Alaskan Independence Party is “Alaska First”, and Palin’s campaign slogan during her gubernatorial run was, you guessed it, “Alaska First”. There’s reason to believe that she’s still of that mindset. And who knows, maybe when she joined the Republicans she was just following the dictates of the party, which advocates “infiltrating” the major parties in order to advance the secessionist cause.

McCain’s slogan was, until recently, “Country First”, but that has apparently been shitcanned, along with all that talk about experience.

We have been bombarded with fact free assertions that Obama is at worst a secret terrorist, at best a politician who puts his own interests above his country. At all events he hates his country, we have been asked to believe. Yet Palin is a politician who belonged to a party advocating secession. Will the patriot police get on the case of an avowed secessionist? We all know the answer.

But who am I to complain? Finally, something I can sort of agree with Palin about. No, I am not in favor of Alaskan secession. I’m an agnostic on the issue. However, for years I have, only half in jest, advocated New England secession, which I actually consider more a case of the real America kicking out the folks who’ve ruined the country we New Englanders brought into being. I have elaborated on my views in prior posts, at my old blog address. I’m pretty sure were I to run for President as a Democrat those old posts would disqualify me from office. I guess I’d have to run as a Republican.

That’s not vetting you can believe in!

Sarah Palin is a disaster for the country. It remains to be seen whether she is a disaster for John McCain. What does not remain to be seen is whether John McCain is competent to be president. We now have proof positive that he is not. He apparently chose someone to be vice-president, and possibly the next president, about whom he knew next to nothing. From Josh Marshall:

Earlier I noted Andrea Mitchell’s reference to reports that the McCain camp had just sent a team of GOP lawyers up to Alaska to do what I guess you’d call a post-vetting of Sarah Palin. Now George Stephanopoulos appears to have more. George says the McCainers are sending a “rapid response team of about ten operatives that includes lawyers” to do the aforementioned deeper vet. A lot of attention is being given to Gov. Palin’s daughter’s situation. The much bigger deal is the expanding trooper-gate investigation, the fact that Palin lied in her Friday speech about her purported opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere, her apparent former membership in the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, and more. Individually, you can come to your own judgment about how consequential these stories are. What they show pretty clearly now — in addition to the news that the McCain campaign is only now sending in a vetting team — is that John McCain didn’t do any serious vetting of Palin before he invited her to join his ticket and, he hopes, become Vice President of the United States.

Whether he fell for a pretty face (it wouldn’t be the first time he let his wiener do his thinking) or he just decided to “gamble” with the future of the Republic, this is proof positive that the man who trumpets his own experience has learned nothing in a long career in politics.

Here’s more on Palin by the way, who-also by the way- retained a lawyer today to fend off impeachment in Alaska. She appears to be an executive in the grand tradition of George Bush. The first thing she did when she became Mayor of her Alaska Mayberry was to fire everybody, for no reason at all:

If a small-town mayor ever ruled with an iron fist — it was Palin. Eleven days after taking office in 1996, she mailed letters to each of the city’s top managers requesting that they resign as a test of loyalty.

The Anchorage Daily News at the time reported the strange events: (via Nexis)

Mayor Sarah Palin sent the resignation requests Thursday to Police Chief Irl Stambaugh, public works director Jack Felton, finance director Duane Dvorak and Mary Ellen Emmons, the head of libraries. A fifth director — John Cooper, who oversaw the city museum — resigned earlier this month after Palin eliminated his position.

Cooper initially resisted resigning, but to no avail. Palin also later fired the police chief, saying she knew in her “heart” that he did not support her. She left the head of libraries a letter saying she was out — though Palin later decided to spare the librarian after being convinced that she would tow the line.

The whole saga is unusual — considering Palin prides herself on being independent and seems to enjoy butting heads with her own party. But, this sounds like she requires fierce loyalty of those who work for her.

A despot, true to the Republican traditions. No doubt she replaced them with cronies who were sure to do a heckuva job.

There’s already speculation that she will share the same fate as Eagleton (e.g., here and here), a fate she more richly deserves than that decent man. There is a brief window for that to happen, in my opinion. McCain has mortgaged his candidacy to this lady. He can’t be perceived as having forced her out, because he would outrage the women who support her for that reason (a microscopically small number of people, most likely, but probably existing in statistically relevant numbers) and, more importantly, his evangelical base which doesn’t care what an incompetent nut-case she is. In addition, it would be an admission of incompetence on his own part. McGovern could not have been expected to know about Eagleton’s past. All McCain had to do was get someone to Google her, and he could have found almost everything that has come out so far. In fact, all he had to do was go to Josh’s website. He’s been writing about Palin’s problems long before she was chosen to run for vice-president.

If she’s to leave, it must be before Thursday, and it must be in a way that is perceived to be of her own choosing. I would suggest that she decide that really, maybe “I should spend time with the Down Syndrome Child that I chose to bring into the world, given the fact that such a child needs intensive care, and given the fact that I made a commitment to care for it when I decided to have it. For that reason”, she might go on, “I have decided that though I am flattered by being chosen, and I would love to go on with the campaign, I must put my family first, etc., gag, etc.” None of it would be true, of course, but it would be truthy enough to do the trick.

Finally, since we’re on all things Palin, watch this McCain spokesman weasel out of backing up the McCain claim that she has military and foreign policy experience by dint of being “commander in chief” of the Alaskan National Guard. The claim, by the way, is factually untrue as it relates to the National Guard’s activities on foreign soil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2qDI[/youtube]

I may have to start a new category for this lady. I wouldn’t have thought a vice-presidential candidate would warrant it. I only regret that after eight years of Bush it is really hard to summon up the proper degree of outrage about this candidacy. It reaches heights of incompetence, arrogance, cynicism and recklessness without precedent prior to November, 2000. Unfortunately, it doesn’t come close to tying Bush/Cheney/Rove at their best.

Can’t resist

Again, thanks to a reader that tipped me off to the latest rumors about Sarah Palin. This is the best account I’ve seen, though it’s also covered at Buzzflash.

There are a number of things about the story that lend credence to the speculation, the picture at the linked article being one. Another is the fact that she allegedly broke her water in Texas and flew to Alaska to have the baby, rather than have it in Texas, like any normal person would do. She would have to be in Alaska during the time of the birth, of course, and it is possible she was notified while at the conference that her daughter was about to have the baby.

All of this is totally wild speculation at this point, but so much fun.

Update: I figured it was too good to be true.

McCain examines Sarah’s qualifications

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RN5xbWtNSU[/youtube]

Sunday Morning Sermon

Via Pharyngula:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjfxCp92pc[/youtube]