Of Sarah Palin, and Other Political Ramblings

I like Sarah Palin. I told someone before the GOP veep announcement she'd be a good pick.

I'm not going to defend her against the many attacks that have been tossed her way, for two reasons. First, by the time I finished, there'd be five new ones. I could never keep up. Second, most of those attacks aren't worth dignifying with a defense.

I will, however, caution those who attack her - I won't say the left, because I have too much respect for my good friends who are on the left to think they'd stoop to that level, plus I consider myself more middle than right - that they only do their cause and their candidate harm.

For a group that complained loud and long about the "swift-boating" of John Kerry, they are subjecting her to far worse, far more vile, far less fair attacks.

I'll just point out one thing, since I've already weighed in on the ridiculous "experience" question. Oh, alright, I'll add a few more things to the "experience" argument first.

She has used the veto. She has fought a legislature, and worked with them as well.

She's been decried as having been governor of one of the least populous states in the nation.

Well, governors aren't just charged with governing the people, any more than CEOs are just HR managers.

Her state is the largest in terms of land mass in the US. The richest in terms of natural resources. The greatest in terms of ecological importance. And the nearest in proximity to Russia.

That means she's had to marshal more in resources, balance more environmentally sensitive issues, and negotiate more with a hostile nation than any chief executive except the President.

And she's done it all very well, if her approval ratings are any indication.

Hillary Clinton won popular praise for proposing to "take the profits" from the oil companies and give them to the people in subsidies.

Sarah Palin has actually done it, and done it the right way.

As for the notion that she only appeals to small-town America, the knock on McCain - as well as that on Obama and Biden from the right - is that they're "out of touch with America" - McCain because he owns several homes, Obama because he's viewed as an elitist who looks down on middle Americans as "bitter people clinging to their guns and their God." Biden is supposed to balance that, but please - he's a Washington institution who lives in a compound and spends $4,000 a month on train fare.

Sarah Palin is in touch with America. And that's refreshing.

On to my main point. I heard a pundit say the other night that she either puts her family first or her job first - she can't do both.

Women everywhere should be outraged. That comment sets women's rights back 100 years.

What that statement basically charges is that if you work, you're not putting your family first. And that's pure, unadulterated BS. Just think if we applied that standard to men. No one could work. We'd go back to being hunter-gatherers, except we couldn't leave the cave to hunt or gather without neglecting the little Neanderthals.

Please.

I have to think that even Hillary would bristle at that one.

************

I know conventions are all about hype. But man, I respect Cindy McCain.

I want to be like her.

Yeah, she's rich. But first of all, her father came by those riches honestly. He grew up poor, the son of an alcoholic, and his first job was as a paper salesman. A working-class guy who took advantage of the opportunities America offered, worked hard, pulled himself up by his own bootstraps (after serving his country in World War II as a bombardier, during which time his planes were shot down several times - for which he'll no doubt catch grief, as his son-in-law has), lived the American dream and became wealthy.

Sound familiar? It should - it's virtually Barack Obama's story. Except the serving his country part.

Second, she shares those riches generously. That's my dream. I want to be wealthy. Not to have more, but to give more. She's done a considerable amount of mission work. She's committed to using her wealth and influence - and America's abundance and influence in the world - to make this country, this world, a better place for all those who don't have the opportunities and blessings she's enjoyed.

A guy like Chris Gardner gets praise heaped on him for that, as well he should. Will Smith makes a movie about him.

Cindy McCain? All she gets is sneers about how many houses she owns.

Maybe that's because she - like Sarah Palin - is a woman. Maybe if she'd just stayed home and made babies, and daddy had left his money to a son instead (though he didn't have a son to leave it to), people would be more approving of her.

************

The theme here has essentially been gender discrimination. So let me turn my attention to discrimination of another stripe.

Age discrimination.

It is as real, and as prevalent, and as recognized by our laws, as age or race discrimination.

And it's being applied to John McCain.

If I were 72 years of age or older, I'd be outraged. Who says people that age can't be chief executives?

Ronald Reagan was a pretty effective president, though there are some who disparage his record. But history pretty much speaks for itself. Hey, maybe he did sleep through some cabinet meetings. But heck, I would, too.

Jacob Javits, despite his debilitating bout with Lou Gehrig's disease, was sharp as a tack right up until his death at the age of 82. Oh, he also supported labor unions and civil rights, and sponsored the first African-American page and the first female page in the US Senate.

And he was a Republican - a maverick, as it were.

My Dad was also sharp as a tack, right up until the night four and a half years ago when he dropped dead, about 15 years before we all thought he would, based on the longevity of his mother, who lived to be 98, and two of his uncles, one of whom celebrated his 100th birthday, and one of whom missed doing so by two weeks. Dad was 82. Had he been elected president at 72, he could have served two full terms and still enjoyed two years of life in retirement.

And McCain's own mother is 96, suggesting that perhaps the gene pool in that family is also slanted toward longevity. And she's certainly sharp.

But hey, as my Dad proved, some people defy the gene pool. So McCain may not reach 96.

But here's the thing: I'm 49, and I may not reach 50. "No one knows the hour," as the Good Book says.

My daughter came home from high school and said they'd been discussing the election, and that someone had said McCain was too old, because he might die before he served out his term (the same was said of Reagan, and of Cheney as VP).

I told her I had three words for those people.

J. F. K.

************

A final thought. The US population is aging. I don't know the demographics of each party in detail, but I'd have to venture a guess that the parties are relatively equally distributed across the demographic lines, with some notable exceptions.

So I assume that there are a fair number of elderly Democrats. And female Democrats.

To wit, the two oldest people that I know very well are both life-long Democrats. And they're both women.

So my question is this: to what extent do these certain factions within the Democratic party risk alienating a good chunk of their base by decrying one candidate as too old to govern, and by stating that his female running mate should be home tending her babies instead of working?

I don't hear anybody on the right publicly saying that Barack Obama is too black to govern. Discrimination is discrimination. And regardless of its target, it's ugly.