WACO, Texas — To read some of the commentary, and the speculation that passes for reporting, you would think that female voters have lemon chiffon between the ears.
Honestly. How empty-headed do some people presume women voters to be?
From the moment John McCain named Sarah Palin his nominee, analysts were calling it a play for Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters.
Call it what you want, but . . .
The XX chromosome alignment is just about all Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have in common. Saying that a female on John McCain's ticket will draw women who supported Clinton — particularly when Palin and Clinton so differ on policy — is like saying gray-haired male Republicans will vote for Barack Obama because Joe Biden is "one of them."
Is Palin grossly underqualified? Or does having commanded the Alaska National Guard (first line of defense vs. the Russkies) end that argument? Is she a reformer as touted, or in bed with the usual corrupting suspects?
A veritable avalanche of side stories cascades with this nomination. But the real story is about issues, and where McCain is taking his campaign. The choice of Palin, rather than being a nod to progressive women, is an extension of McCain's entreaties early in this campaign to the Christian right. McCain criticized George Bush when the latter spoke at fundamentalist Bob Jones University in 2000. He said no candidate of either major party should pander "to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance."
But, based on issues alone, in choosing Palin, McCain has reached as far to the extreme as the continental shelf will allow.
Palin passes every test of the anti-abortion movement. She opposes stem cell research. She would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape and incest.
Rape and incest are words that crimp the "pro-life" rhetoric of most Republicans, including McCain. If he were to appoint jurists to the Supreme Court like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as advertised, the legal protections underlying those situations would be wiped clean. (Imagine a state tribunal under which a woman seeking an abortion must prove she was raped.)
Unlike the McCain who shunned the religious right in 2000, the Palin choice is a nod to those who wish to impose their Christian faith in setting public policy.
Palin: inquiring as mayor if her city can ban books from the public library that constituents find offensive. Palin: telling Pentecostal brethren to pray that invading Iraq is a "task that is from God."
Whatever moderate stances McCain has taken, he has chosen a partner who disputes that global warming is man-caused, who opposes comprehensive sex education and thinks churches ought to be able to keep their tax-exempt status and engage in partisan campaigns.
Within modern-day politics of personality, Palin's personal issues have gotten a lot more attention than they merit. But within the scope of what a government can or should do, the rejoicing by the religious right over her nomination underscores fundamental issues of governance.
Rather than Goldwater-style libertarianism, the crowd that hails Palin's choice is all about authoritarian government. Government is my shepherd. Paths of righteousness and all that.
So, Hillary voters for an anti-choice, evangelically nosy government?
From what I read, that must be a tremendous voting bloc.
John Young writes for the Waco Tribune-Herald. E-mail: jyoung AT wacotrib.com.
