Originally Posted by groverat
If "personalizing a policy" is what one calls bringing one's children into the national spotlight of a heated debate, then how is this different from what was happening when she was actually serving her term as governor?
I have no idea to what you are referring. I simply know that many politicians when discussing policy attempt to put a human face on it be it their own, their family, or examples that they have met. Obama ran largely on his two autobiographies. There was much discussion during the campaign about what part of Pennsylvania who's family came from and the ramifications with regard to backbone. Obama made much of his grandparents Kansas roots as well. Those are just examples I can remember off my head but claiming to be driven to action due to an event that happened to a family member, or because of an eye opening experience related to a family member is not an odd motivation. Bill Clinton was the man from hope as well, and the son of a single mother (as well) and recounted often how the struggles of his mother drove many of his policy initiatives.
Whether it be opposing or supporting, it is only with Palin that this is called into question. People need to get back to discussing the policy. We need to stop the intent game revealed by words like "astroturfing" whereby someone declares they don't even have to consider a group or their desires in terms of making public policy because something about their intent disqualifies them from discussion.
Whenever the health care debate comes up, suddenly a lot of stories about wait times, and who gets or is denied treatment pop up. The concerns voiced by Palin are legitimate. When running the cost to benefit analysis to see which pill to buy, the other part of that equation is to note who really gets the most benefit from having it and denying those who are deemed to get little benefit.
Again these concerns, regardless of who voiced them using what mechanism, are legitimate and they are not being addressed. Instead they are being ignored because ad-hom is the tool of choice of the left right now. They want Jon Stewart to blast them. They want SNL to make some skits about them. They want to declare them to be "astroturfers" so that all the people, signs, and concerns can be ignored.
The concerns are real and authentic and are not going to go away.
Now in honor of Bergermeister, I have a Sunday ponder as well. Lately I've seen a few articles tackling the birther arguments and one thing they all seem to note but only half way address is this point of Obama's mother going to Seattle 15 days after he was born. The main point is a contention that this is proof he wasn't a new born and was in fact born somewhere else prior to his "birthdate."
As I've said, I don't care about that at all. The secondary point, and one I think is really at the crux of matters like this is Obama's claim in his own books that his mother stayed in Hawaii and that his father ran off to Harvard. This is the entire basis of "Dreams of my Father," a dad abandoning his family. If mom was the one doing the abandoning, it might call many aspects of this "once in a generation, change agent guy who is history making and on the right side of history."
How will it change it? I'm not sure and really don't know thus why it is a ponder. I just keep recalling incidents like Christmas in Cambodia or sniper fire in Bosnia. When someone claims an event that was life and philosophy altering for them and it turns out to not be true, people start slamming the door shut a lot quicker. I'm sure Obama would get the personal benefit of the doubt because no one can really remember down to that age. However then the point would become how this family that shaped him in the absence of his father apparently all needs to be thrown under the bus for lying to him his whole life.
Neither outcome is pretty.