A Friend Stopped By | 08/30/2008 11:06 am

Judy Bachrach: What's Not to Like About Sarah Palin?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Judy Bachrach writes for Vanity Fair, and is the creator of thecheckoutline.org, an online advice column for friends and relatives of the terminally ill.

What’s not to like about Sarah Palin, John McCain’s amazingly original choice as vice presidential material? That’s what I want to know. My husband tells me he likes her a lot because “She looks just like a girl I used to know with lots of great hair and good cheekbones, named Amber.” Which I think says it all.

For instance, when asked whether public school children should learn evolution or what is known in certain circles as “intelligent design,” meaning Darwin was a complete phony, Palin, who is the daughter of a science teacher, replied, “Teach both…and let kids debate both sides.”
I love that line, and not just because I flunked biology sophomore year, and would have appreciated the advocate from Wasilla defending my constitutional right to ignore amoebae.

I think Palin has it exactly right , and am not in the least surprised that back in her days as a Miss Wasilla beauty contestant she won the title of “Miss Congeniality.” In the educational arena, she is certainly very affable. Teach students that doing their homework every night is obligatory – and also that it’s optional – and let kids debate both sides. Tell them that if you divide a number by zero, you’re entitled to come up with all sorts of results. Explain in grammar 101 that the word “class” is a collective noun – or that maybe it isn’t – and let kids debate both sides.

In other words, in her view school is the home of untrammeled democracy. She is educationally pro-choice.

Well perhaps not entirely untrammeled. Perhaps not wholly pro-choice. In the personal arena, as it turns out, Palin is anti-choice. So if a condom breaks, then no, kids shouldn’t be permitted “to debate both sides.”

I don’t know what to say about John McCain and his decision-making abilities. Not long ago, I had to redo my will, and you wouldn’t believe the time spent trying to decide who would be the guardian of our kids in the event we died. Longtime friends, close relatives, lawyers – all these were examined, sifted, rejected, and then re-examined before we made a final selection.

And then there’s John McCain …

Read more about: John McCain, Judy Bachrach, Politics, Sarah Palin

79 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Georgia! You sent me to the dictionary twice! I like that. To answer your questions: (1) Fountain Pen Network: Might be a place to talk about my bookplates … Thank you. (2) Bookplates: Hand drawn, pen and ink, then scanned and printed on standard self-sticking labels, either transparent or opaque, depending on the design. Printings are numbered. (3) No. I am not a working artist. Are you (you said you were painting)? I went to art school but that path abruptly ended with marriage and children and then single-motherhood. Whatever ability I had is mostly lost. Enough! about me. News says police outside Republican Convention Hall used tear gas to manage demonstrators? Is that possible? Gotta find out what happened … Good night, Georgia, ‘til next time.

By rocky rocky on 09/02/2008 11:00 pm

e-mail alert

Judy . . . what is so wrong with what you said comes in the first paragraph when your husband - who I would gather is more than reasonably intelligent — tells you that he likes the choice, likes the woman because “she looks like a great girl with big hair and great cheekbones like my old friend, Amber”. I actually had chills with that remark. Is this even going to a small portion of your husband’s judgment - and God knows how many others then - on his selection???? This is not a beauty contest. This is about the solid credentials of the VP candidate, the experience of the VP candidate - hopefully in Washington instead of a far-off place (so far-off that McCain has only set eyes on her once — WHAT?) - and in a world torn apart at home and abroad, in a world where our own futures are truly at stake in a way they have not been in our lifetimes - it is irreprehensible to even lightly suggest that the physical attributes of Amber and Sarah are mighty appealing.

By joan larsen on 08/30/2008 11:50 am

e-mail alert

Hey Joan, this piece by Judy was tongue in cheek and very clever and her husband’s comment probably was an off the cuff kind of thing. But her point, and it’s well taken, is that many people might feel that way. Read De B’s link to an article that addresses this. I suggested she keep posting it on all these threads–––it sheds a different light on this whole issue.

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 08/30/2008 12:33 pm

e-mail alert

Phyllis — you know I like cleverness - I thrive on it — and I recognized it as somewhat “tongue in cheek”. But you know, I am very careful to not fly off the hook — you don’t catch me at that - and I usually will get others’ take on specifics if I can. Scarily enough, men friends we breakfasted with this morning opened with the same type of “off-the-cuff” response as the writer’s husband. I can laugh as well as the next one, but - guess I am more sensitve on this issue - but if people come out with that, a little something has to be planted already in their minds. Others - less educated - may use that as their whole judgment. Just a guess - but I think a good one. Then — oh my gosh!

By joan larsen on 08/30/2008 1:10 pm

e-mail alert

Joan, The realization of why she was put into nomination became obvious when James Dobson announced that he would now support the republican ticket. This has a lot more to do with bring the base evangelicals back into the fold that it does with Hillary women. So, now here we are talking more about creationism, abortion, gays, etc. and less or nothing about economy, this everlasting war, losing our position in the world, etc. That is what is so frustrating about this. Why do we fall into this trap every time? I wish there was a way that we could collectively insist on sticking to the issues. Have the standards for our nation’s leaders fallen so low and dumbed so down that we are willing to settle for such mediocrity? I don’t know how old you are compared to me, but think of all the VPs that have had to jump into some absolutely historically horrible situations and have a feel for what to do immediately. Harry Truman for Roosevelt(death), Ford for Agnew who had to leave because of corruption and then Ford for Nixon who had to leave because of corruption; there was Johnson for Kennedy(death). Gore and Cheney have been the most involved VP, perhaps in history; in fact, Gore in the Clinton administration participated and raised the bar considerably for the VP’s duties. Didn’t Woodrow Wilson have a stroke? Look in our history at how many VPs have been called to duty. Some people are upset because the media and the rest of us are discussing the possiblilty of McCain not making it through his term, but the reality is that the VP has to be good to go immediately. And, good looks and a sparkling personality won’t help at that point. So, to you all who say, “it’s just for the office of VP”, better go do your home work because it’s not like being a mayor in a village.

By Diana T on 08/31/2008 1:24 am

e-mail alert

Diana, Your words - as always - ring like the largest bell. And, yes, we are of the same generation — which give us - the smarter of us anyhow a leg up on maturity, on knowledge, on now-how from the years we have been alert, thinking and knowledgable. My own present and past background in politics in my state has, at times, kept me on the inside track to some extent. You have not seen me on because I do not intend to further engage in what seems to be “a ground war” that has ensued. The facts - as you have expressed them succinctly - and hopefully I have - should be more than enough to make them understand. On Friday I felt I had received a body blow as I have never done. Somehow I had retained some faith that our leaders would not stoop to the lowest common denominator. The future of our country - already seemingly insoluble with the ropes” that must be gone through to get bipartisan agreement for our best - is already frought with a wobbly future ( and i am trying to be kind). Tactics - for this is what they were - that further undermine the wobbly base are unconciencable to those of us who do know, do understand the end result only too well. Forever thanks, Diana, for your depiction of the Bible Belt that - being insulated in the cities - I have not been deep in the middle of. You have given a college education in a succinct and scary manner. You are a voice of reason whom I am proud to know. Joan

By joan larsen on 08/31/2008 7:21 am

e-mail alert

Joan, I agree with you and all Diana has said. I think the problem here in this thread is all the jokes, puns and attempts at humor by the founders at WOW. Why don’t they just have the courage to just say what they really think? This isn’t a laughing matter.

By Agyness O on 09/04/2008 6:07 pm

e-mail alert

I’ll tell you what is not to like about this choice. Like I said in another thread, when the election is this close, we have questions about our voting machines and a right-wing propaganda machine with enough voices to drown out common sense. Add to that the racial element of this election and there is nothing good about this. John McCain is a 72 year old man who has had serious health problems and his choice of VP is of vital interest. By choosing Sarah Palin he has chosen political pandering and expediency over the welfare of our country. Sarah Palin was the mayor of a tiny town of less than 9,000 in Alaska. She has been the governor of a state with fewer citizens than the city I live in, and THIS for only 18 months. Not only is her ideology polar opposite to Hillary Clinton whose disgruntled voters are one of the targets of this choice, but there are quite a number of extremely troubling links between Sarah Palin and neopentecostal dominionists. Even her educational background does not lend itself to being a VP candidate. A degree in journalism may be a nice thing to have, but it does not prepare a person to lead a nation as powerful as the U.S. if need be. If we have any hope for this country to pull itself out of the terrible place 8 years of Bush and 6 years of full Republican control has put us, it is small enough with a McCain presidency, but I cannot even fathom it should we have Sarah Palin at the helm. I have children who have a lot riding on this country and on this election and I don’t appreciate John McCain playing with our future for his own self interest.

By DeBúrca obj on 08/30/2008 12:05 pm

e-mail alert

DeBruca — well said and to the point!

By joan larsen on 08/30/2008 12:27 pm

e-mail alert

De B. See my post above to Joan re: that link you gave us on the other thread.

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 08/30/2008 12:35 pm

e-mail alert

Correction: that was a link Suzanne gave us. I’ll see if I can dig it up.

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 08/30/2008 12:39 pm

e-mail alert

Very good article about why Palin poses a very big risk to Obama: http://www.alternet.org/election08/96989/a_beauty_queen_for_vp%3A_politi…

By phyllis Doyle Pepe on 08/30/2008 12:41 pm

e-mail alert

Oh Judy, Please, c’mon. Give me a break. This is a big country that had more democrats register to vote in the primaries than ever before. They are fired up and ready to go, and you have ‘tongue and cheek fear’ regarding this? Put down comments about democracy in education. You better hope there is some kind of democracy in education. Look at the whole picture. The democrats are running strong candidate and incumbents in many of their races, and it is believed they will gain more seats. So, if McCain wins the presidency and some judges retire, it is not likely that many of his choices will get through the nominating process. The republicans have had several devastating years politically because of corruption and sexual scandals. The democrats got global warming turned into a political issue rather than a scientific issue, gained seats, nominated an historical candidate, and have a machine in gear moving forward at full speed. If you want more democrats to win, call Nancy Pelosi and tell her to get busy and start doing her job, and not stalling for political power. You may be in a better salaried position than most and they don’t care if Pelosi thinks it’s important to wait to gain more power, they want the economy fixed. The economy has been screwed up by dems and repubs, and it is going to take both of them to get it fixed.

By Frannie Em on 08/30/2008 1:15 pm

e-mail alert

frannie em, what pelosi needs to do is officially let the house judiciary committee investigate the crimes of the bush administration. education is about learning skills, not a system of myths.

By mary lou s on 09/02/2008 9:20 am

e-mail alert

My older brother teaches science on an Indian reservation in New Mexico, a state where Intelligent Design is taught by mandate. He attended a Franciscan high school, as did I. We have discussed this issue at length, as our experience was having Religion in first period throughout our education. In high school science classes, neither of us heard God mentioned - that was covered in first period. In science class, we learned emperical construct and scientific methodologies. My brother’s class members win the state science fair competition almost every year. He is a “Golden Apple” recipient, and an extraordinary teacher. I respect those who believe in Intelligent Design, but vigorously disagree that this so-called theory should be taught in a science class. Those who say that evolution is a theory are correct. Everything is theoretical. The “fact” that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow is a matter of probability - extremely high probability, but probability nonetheless. To put “Intelligent Design” next to evolution in a scientific environment is to do nothing less than introduce God in the classroom, as the basis for this theory is that science can not “prove” evolution beyond doubt. Nothing is beyond doubt. All theory is subject to stringent review. That is the basis of scientific method. Using God as a catch-all for that which we do not understand is not science. It is religion. The Navajo, who are the students in my brother’s science classes, have a much different idea of God than do Christians. The difficulty that this presents to science teachers is enormous, and amount, in my view, to nothing less than teaching religion in the classroom. If that is the mandate, it should be labeled as such, and not hidden behind a bogus definition of “theory.”

By K O on 08/30/2008 1:15 pm