vetting a veep

OK, there is obviously a lot of controversy over this Palin selection. One of my favorite micro-debates is on her family's right to privacy (as Obama may point out, Constitutional scholar that he is, there is no right to privacy guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, although maybe it should be included in order to offset the violation of the right to unlawful search and seizure that the government is allowed under the "Patriot" Acts).

Okay, to do what Reps despise and re-focus on the issue. McCain and the Reps are squealing over Palin's privacy, that how she rears her family has nothing to do with her fitness for public office. Ok, fine, but then please explain how the following examples fit:

The campaign says the form included such detailed questions as: Have you been faithful in your marriage? Have you ever paid for sex? Have you ever downloaded pornography? Have you ever used or purchased drugs?

Now, as far as I can tell, those are all questions on a candidate's morals. If it turns out that the candidate did use drugs, like Clinton, The Shrub, and Obama, it's okay to cite Palin's drug use. So if those examples of morals are okay, why not the family unit? If you've been divorced, and the politicians themselves use that as a screen for "fitness", then why can't the American public? And where are your morals displayed anywhere more so than your family unit? You're going to treat your spouse/children a lot closer to the morals you actually practice (by definition) than those you just preach. And that's why the Reps desperately want to present a (n often false) squeaky-clean moral facade that is above question, because the more you question, the more hypocrisy you find.

And don't even get me started on how Stewart pwnd Gingrich over the meaning of the word "decision." Fabulous.


And if you have the appetite for even more Palin hypocrisy ("she was for wasteful pork barrels before she was against them!", "she was for Alaskan independence ... and still probably is!"), have a gander. Brilliant.