The Problem with Sarah

In a recent interview with Bill O'Reilly on The O'Reilly Factor, Karl Rove asserted that Sarah Palin has significantly hurt her chances to run for president in 2012 as the potential Republican nominee. One thing that Rove said in the interview that particularly caught my attention was that she would have been able to "educate herself about the issues" if she had stayed governor of Alaska.

In interviews with Katie Couric during the 2008 presidential campaign, she gave us a glimpse into what Rove means:

- Concerning the decision of Roe v. Wade, Palin asserted that states should have the right to determine policy on abortion but upheld the view of the majority decision, that there is an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution. I think those ideas are at least somewhat conflicting.

- Concerning the economic situation and the debate over government bailouts, she offered this response, somehow reconciling an implementation of bailout funds leading to job creation with the need for tax cuts and cuts in spending, all in one breath. I guess she was trying to stress the need for limited government, but I'm confused by the link between limited government and job creation through the administration of bailout funds.

- Concerning foreign policy, she offered a somewhat convoluted response to the question of how her proximity to Russia (living in Alaska) qualified as 'foreign policy experience.'

I think that Sarah Palin has proven to be a very supportive mother for her children and strong pro-life advocate in this nation. In those regards, I fully support her positions respecting life and her desire to create a pro-life culture in America. I desire the same thing. However, if Mr. Rove is right, and Mrs. Palin needs to "educate herself on the issues," then perhaps it is a good thing that her chances to run as the Republican nominee in 2012 have been diminished, both for her and for the Republican Party.

The Agenda

I was able to check out a couple posts from the Daily Kos today, and I have to say that I was especially surprised by one particular video clip (after I tore my eyes away from an advertisement that implied that the United States was a terrorist financier and the War on Drugs is oppressive), which was an exuberant celebration of Al Franken's victory over Norm Coleman for the disputed U.S. Senate seat from Minnesota.

Around the 3 minute mark of the clip, Bill Press (former chair of the California Democratic Party) happily and forcefully gave his version of the Democrats' political agenda, now that the Dems' 60-vote super-majority is in place:

1. Climate Change Bill

2. Employee Free Choice Act

3. Don't Ask, Don't Tell military policy for homosexuals: get rid of it

4. Defense of Marriage: throw it away

5. Health Care Reform with the Public Plan option with no taxing of benefits

So, the overarching agenda that the Democrats should pass through Congress, now that they have a mandate from the people, is a string of bills that would hurt big business, small business, allow openly gay people into the military, defy American sentiment on the definition of marriage, and increase domestic government spending? And the agenda should be passed now, in the middle of a recession and facing inflationary pressure due to existing massive increases in government spending?

I'm not sure what I think about the gays in the military, but I do think that the other 4 are an absolute disaster waiting to happen. They amount to more government restrictions on business (and not the 'regulate the financial market' kind), a defiance of public opinion on gay marriage in the face of a CALIFORNIA amendment to ban it, and health care reform that will likely need tax increases from all sources to make it work, likely won't improve health care, and will likely lead to rationing and long wait times for important, life-saving procedures, based on what we know of other nations' government health plans.

This super-majority may be very short-lived.