Lessons From the Past

---

---

Our political system is an amazing thing.

It really is. Oh, I know we all complain about things that government does or doesn't do, and we get mad at our elected officials from time to time — but nearly without exception our system has permitted us to make peaceful periodic changes in our elected leadership. We take that for granted, but we wouldn't if we lived in many other places in the world.

But our system also has its idiosyncracies.

The pendulum is always swinging, and the out–of–power party always has plenty of reasons to be energized by midterm elections, starting with the clear historical trend that favors the folks who are outside looking in. This time it is the Democrats' turn as the out–of–power party, and everything seems to point to a big year for them. The president's approval numbers remain low, and Democrats continue to hold a lead in the generic congressional ballot.

Along with that, nearly three dozen Republicans in the House have announced their intention to retire, and more seem likely. The terrain certainly looks favorable for Democrats in 2018.

But history has some cautionary tales.

Let's start with the most recent history that Democrats ignore at their peril.

In 2016 polls showed Hillary Clinton with the lead over Donald Trump — and, indeed, Clinton did win the popular vote by a considerable margin.

But the United States has never elected its presidents by popular vote. It has always elected its presidents by electoral vote, and Clinton's popular votes were too heavily concentrated in the coastal states to influence the Electoral College. (In fact, if you took California's vote entirely out of the mix, Trump would have won the popular vote as well as the electoral vote; Clinton's margin in California was about 3.1 million whereas her margin nationally was 2.86 million.)

The same thing appears to be likely in this year's congressional races. Democrats are concentrated in urban districts, and the Democrats' nominees in those districts are likely to pile up impressive margins. Nancy Pelosi, for example, routinely rolls up incredible margins in her Bay Area district. It's even likely in some places here in Texas, where Clinton carried the metropolitan counties of Dallas, Travis, Bexar and Harris by wide margins.

But all you need to win an election is a single vote. You'd like to do better than that, of course, but some Democrats are likely to roll up huge margins in some districts — when many of those votes would be more beneficial elsewhere.

In Texas, outside of the metro counties and the ones that border Mexico, Republicans still dominated in 2016 — and likely will continue to do so. Some Democrats are salivating at the thought of the open seats that have been held by Republicans, like the South Texas district that has been represented by Republican Lamar Smith for more than 30 years. Smith is retiring, and there have been rumblings of how Democrats think they have an opportunity there, but one of the Democrats seeking the seat once served on Pelosi's staff. That might help win the Democratic primary, but it isn't likely to be a general–election winner in a district that voted for Trump by 10 percentage points.

That brings me to another point. The Democrats, like the Republicans in the first midterm of the Obama years, are engaged in a battle from within. The battle is between the establishment and the extremists. At stake is the direction of the party.

As the battle plays out, the establishment will prevail in some places, and the loose cannons, who are typically the most energized in the midterms, will prevail in others.

Democrats are certain to try to nationalize the campaign, but midterms are not national campaigns. They are held in every state and every House district, but the issues and candidates vary. It is tempting to vote for the loose cannons because they typically oppose everything the in–power party does, but Democrats need to remember how some of those loose cannons worked out for Republicans in the past.

In 2012, Missouri Republican Todd Akin made his widely reported remarks about "legitimate rape" that helped politically endangered Sen. Claire McCaskill win a second term by 16 percentage points. McCaskill is back, still politically vulnerable and running for a third term in a state that voted for Trump by nearly 19 percentage points.

Similarly, Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock's remark that "even if life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Mourdock won the nomination by defeating six–term incumbent Richard Lugar in the primary.

Indiana has only voted for a Democratic presidential nominee once since 1964, but it voted for the Democrat in that Senate race, Joe Donnelly. He, too, is up for re–election — in a state that supported Trump by slightly more than 19 percentage points.

McCaskill and Donnelly were originally expected to lose in 2012, and their victories are big reasons why, when Democrats need to win only two seats from Republicans to have a majority in the Senate, they must defend more than two dozen Senate seats in November.

Democrats have a rare opportunity in 2018, but it is not a slam dunk.

Abortion and Punishment

---

---

DONALD TRUMP: Are you Catholic?

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yes, I think ...

TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church's position?

MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.

TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?

MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.

TRUMP: And do you concur with the position?

MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question — here's my problem with it ...

TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you: But what do you say about your church?

MATTHEWS: It's not funny.

TRUMP: Yes, it's really not funny. What do you say about your church? They're very, very strong.

MATTHEWS: They're allowed to — but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe ...

TRUMP: No, but ...

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

---

I am always uncomfortable when the subject of abortion is brought into the political arena.

That is mostly because I have always considered myself totally neutral on the issue. It's like Mark Twain said about heaven and hell. He said he had friends in both places, and I have friends on both sides. What's more, whenever my friends explain their positions, I find it hard to dispute what any of them say.

I agree that it is terrible that people end the lives of unborn children before they have begun. Children are the most innocent of creatures, and it is hard to justify denying them the opportunity to live and to love, to experience all the things, good and bad, that there are to experience in this world.

But I have known a few women who had abortions — I may know others as well, but those are the three who I know for sure have had abortions — and it was a painful experience for them. I'm not talking about physical pain — although I'm sure there was some of that as well. I'm talking about emotional pain, inner turmoil.

Without exception they experienced fear — of what, I couldn't tell you. Society? The legal system? God? All three? All three and more? I don't think even they knew for sure. But they were afraid, and they lived with that fear long after the abortion.

They were sad, too — again, not well defined, but it would be safe to say that they felt sadness over having to do what they did — and that, too, can be for many reasons. Obviously, I could never know what maternal instincts feel like, but my best guess would be that a significant part of that sadness was because the act of abortion is totally contradictory to one's protective maternal instincts. It's a law of nature, really, and I am certain that there is an emotional price to be paid by those who believe they have violated natural law.

They were confused, swept along by a series of events over which they had no control.

If the subject is going to be punishment, I think those women — and most of the others who have had abortions since the Supreme Court's decision 43 years ago — endured plenty of punishment, mostly self–inflicted. It was a mandatory byproduct of the procedure.

I'm sure that isn't the kind of punishment Trump meant when he spoke with Chris Matthews at a town hall meeting that was televised on MSNBC earlier this week ahead of next week's primary in Wisconsin. And there may well be some people in this country who agreed with Trump when he said there had to be a form of punishment for women who had abortions if abortion was made illegal. There probably are some people who agreed with him, but it would have to be a tiny sliver of a minority.

In fact, of all the pro–life people I know and have known — and bear in mind that I live in what is arguably the most conservative part of the country — I can't think of one who would support the idea of punishing the woman. The doctor who performed the abortion and profited by it is another matter entirely, but I cannot imagine any of my pro–life friends saying that the woman should be punished.

They would probably advocate counseling of some kind, but I'm quite sure they would be sympathetic with the woman and see her as more of a victim than a perp.

Trump backtracked shortly after making the statement — presumably when his aides pointed out to him that he had enough problems with women without saying they should be punished for having an abortion — but the damage had been done. Trump's negatives took a hit, not just with women but with young voters, independents, the list of groups keeps on growing. I'm sure his answer didn't help him with Hispanics, most of whom were already angry at him over his immigration remarks.

(Perhaps my favorite line about Trump's standing with women came in a column written by former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan for the Wall Street Journal. "Already his numbers in next week's Wisconsin primary have fallen," Noonan wrote, "and as for women — well, with women nationally Mr. Trump is currently more popular than cholera — but not by much.")

I haven't really been surprised by the backlash. I've always thought Trump was something of a loose cannon; I'm just surprised it took so long to become clear to everyone else. Like most people, I guess I figured he would fizzle out long before his campaign reached the point where trying to stop him from winning the nomination appeared as hopeless as trying to stop a runaway train.

But now he may have handed his opponents the ammunition they need to bring him down. My take on this, though, is that it's not just the interview that is responsible. I truly believe it is the cumulative effect of several months of Trumpisms that leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those who hear them. Some — not all but some — of the Trump supporters I know are mortified by the things he has been saying. Texas' Republican primary was held on March 1 so the Trump supporters around here who are suffering from buyer's remorse have few options, but it isn't too late for people who vote in primaries this month and in May and early June.

I've heard the Wisconsin primary described as the Republicans' Alamo — their very last opportunity to stop Trump. Based on the polls I have been reading, Trump may well lose in Wisconsin, a state in which he was leading not long ago — and victories have a way of ending one candidate's momentum and giving it to someone else. We will see if that is what happens this time.

Nor am I really surprised that Matthews pressed Trump into delivering one of his shoot–from–the–hip responses. Matthews long ago made clear which side he favored in political contests, and he was doing his usual job as the lackey journalist. Mission accomplished. He drew Trump out into a minefield of his own making.

It's part of the give–and–take of politics. There hasn't been a president in my lifetime who hasn't felt mistreated by the press. If you aspire to be president, you have to be prepared for that. You have to be nimble, light on your feet in your answers, not lead–footed.

Trump gives the impression that he speaks without having given much, if any, thought to the subject. I have been critical for months of his failure to provide any solutions for the problems facing this country except to repeatedly tell us that the United States is "going to win again" when he becomes president. That sounds like Charlie Sheen (who also has problems with women).

It is simply inexcusable for a Republican not to anticipate questions about abortion. The public is going to assume, rightly or wrongly, that a Republican is going to be pro–life, and that is probably what Matthews assumed. Now, it's OK to be pro–life if you're going to give thoughtful reasons for your position — but it isn't OK, even with most other pro–lifers, to be Draconian about it.

Trump wasn't the only one who needed instruction in how to conduct himself, though. Matthews, too, could have used some pointers.

I have taught many journalism students, and I would chastise any of them for allowing an interviewee to become the interviewer, as Matthews allowed Trump to do. In this case, it ended up working out for Matthews, but that can so easily backfire on a journalist.

A journalist has no control over how the subject of an interview responds to questions. I understand that. Each situation is different and must be handled differently, but, in this case, I would have advised Matthews to say this when Trump started to interview him: "This is not about what I think. I am not a candidate for president. You are a candidate for president, and it is in that capacity that I am asking you what you think."

(By the way, that is essentially the same question I would ask of Hillary Clinton on the subject of her emails — in the context of her Nixonian assertion that her predecessors at State did the same things she did: "This is not about what they did. This is about what you did.")

When I was studying journalism in college, one of my professors delivered the lecture that every journalism student has heard at one time or another. "You should be like a fly on the wall" when you report on an event, the professor said. "The reader shouldn't even know you're there." If there was one thing that was driven home repeatedly in my journalism classes, it was the idea that a journalist should never be part of the story.

The readers — or, in this case, the viewers — knew Matthews was there, that he was part of the story. He managed to turn the tables on Trump and goad him into giving what could be, in hindsight, the remarks that proved to be the tipping point for his campaign. Perhaps, in Matthews' mind, all's well that ends well.

But he ran a huge risk of being the elephant in the room rather than a fly on the wall.

Will She or Won't She?

---

---

I grew up in Arkansas. I lived there during most of Bill Clinton's tenure as governor.

And I feel as qualified to say this as anyone who lived in Arkansas when I did: Hillary Clinton has always been a perplexing person. (Well, at least as an adult. I can't say what she was like as a child.)

During her time in Arkansas' governor's mansion, she often took stands or made statements that cut against the grain with average Arkansans. She was a traditional feminist in most of her views, and she was unapologetic for it — which produced kind of a strange dichotomy. I knew people who frequently disagreed with her yet still admired her determination to stand up for what she believed.

Would those same people have voted for her for anything? I doubt it. To my knowledge, most never supported her husband when he ran for governor.

But they admired her integrity — and, like all first spouses, she had no legal authority in that role. She was part of the deal if they voted for Bill — even if they would not vote for her.

Two for the price of one, as Bill liked to say during the '92 presidential campaign. That seemed to upset some folks, but I barely noticed it. I had heard it before.

And I have heard what she has been saying lately before, too.

She had a conversation with PBS' Charlie Rose the other day, and she was asked about 2016.

"I'm about to have my first grandchild, which I'm thrilled about," she replied. "I can't wait. I want to see what that feels like. I'm not going to skip over it. I want to really be present, as I meet this ... new person in our family."

Can't blame her for that. I know several people who have become grandparents, and they all speak of how rewarding that relationship between grandparent and grandchild is.

I have also known many people who did not live to become grandparents. It is a privilege to live that long, and it certainly should not be taken lightly.

So Hillary's desire to be with her family is completely understandable. It is an excuse I have heard before, though.

John Mitchell served as Richard Nixon's attorney general and, for a time, as Nixon's re–election campaign manager, but he left when the Watergate investigation got too uncomfortable for him.

He gave as his reason for stepping down a desire to be with his family. That was hard for some people to swallow, given that it meant being with his wife, Martha, who had made several phone calls to reporters about the emerging scandal and alleged that political pressure was being applied to her husband and others in the administration.

That was sure to be uncomfortable to say the least, I heard many people say.

I don't think it would be that way for Hillary — except, perhaps, for those times she might have to spend alone with Bill. But Hillary would have the benefit of knowing what it feels like to be a grandmother — and sharing a new relationship with her daughter.

Well, that's a pretty good reason for not seeking the job. But Hillary didn't stop there. She spoke about the negative side as well.

Speaking as one who observed the presidency from close range as both the first spouse and the secretary of state, Hillary told Rose that the job has "gotten tougher."

Well, it always has been a big job — but I can see how it could quickly become overwhelming for anyone. A president has to be better than competent in many different areas.

The economy is still sluggish, just not quite as sluggish as it was five years ago.

Her husband's presidency was relatively peaceful, but, with terrorists and Russians on the march, who knows what kind of foreign environment she would inherit?

And then there are all those social issues that divide Americans' loyalties — guns, contraception and abortion, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, the list goes on and on. I don't think anyone will ever be able to bring Americans together on those issues, but a president is obligated to at least try. Good presidents will try to fashion some kind of compromise that, in the end, pleases no one. Not–so–good presidents won't try to do that. But the issues will still demand a lot of their time and attention.

Seems to me it would be a lot more relaxing — and a lot more fun — to play with her grandchild(ren). She and Bill have that nice big place in New York with that nice big yard that they bought back when they left the White House dead broke. Sounds like a great place to be a grandparent and play with the grandchild(ren).

Plus, if Hillary does not run, she will be able to preserve her integrity.

Just about five years ago, when NBC's Ann Curry interviewed Hillary, she asked her about 2016.

It was a direct question. "Will you run for president again? Yes or no?"

And it got a direct answer. "No."

Curry asked again and received the same response.

For someone who has always argued — albeit in a different context — that no means no, this is a good time to drive home the point.

Of course, the problem is that, when someone prominent rules out a run for the presidency, he/she experiences a spike in his/her favorability ratings.

And the whole thing begins all over again.

Social Darwinism

When Barack Obama lashed out at the Republican budget the other day, calling it "thinly veiled social Darwinism," I must confess that I couldn't help sighing.

It is a blatant example of not just this president's willingness but his eagerness to play the so–called race card whenever he believes it can be used to his benefit (and that is most of the time). The mere mention of the phrase no doubt had his many minions drooling in some kind of mass Pavlovian response.

How many of you who are reading this know what social Darwinism is — beyond the fact that Obama says it is bad and it is the ultimate objective of his political foes? In fact, it is a term that is probably much more familiar to those on college campuses than to the common man in the street.

You might think that you know what it is — but, in fact, there are many often contradictory interpretations of it.

Among the concepts to which it is tied is that of eugenics, which was and is about manipulating genetics, promoting preferred traits and weeding out unfavorable ones — that kind of thing.

Early advocates applied it to the breeding of animals, but some folks have tried to apply it to human reproduction.

Most notably, the Nazis, who were inspired by the eugenics work that had been done in the United States.

Largely in disfavor today, eugenics enjoyed a period of popularity in the United States in the first half of the 20th century. In the 1920s, the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute that permitted compulsory sterilization of those who were deemed unfit — the mentally retarded, the "feeble–minded," etc.

That case — Buck v. Bell — wasn't about race.

But it was about negative eugenics, about eliminating the possibility that undesirable traits might be passed from one generation to the next.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, known as "The Great Dissenter" because he tended to disagree with the majority so frequently, did not dissent on the Virginia statute.

In fact, Holmes wrote for the majority, arguing that the genetic purity of the state outweighed an individual's bodily integrity.

---

"Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Buck v. Bell

---

That case, as well as others, inspired the Nazis to pursue a racially pure culture. The practice of Nazi sterilization of, initially, the feeble–minded was addressed in the Academy Award–winning film "Judgment at Nuremberg" — as was Holmes' written opinion.

The Nazis could just as easily have been inspired by the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, who was said to be a racist. She believed that people with light skin were superior to people with dark skin, and, in 1939, she initiated The Negro Project, which has been described as an effort to systematically eliminate blacks.

Well, at least, that's how the extreme right–wing narrative goes.

The other side will tell you that is not correct. Sanger "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim." And that aim was not to eradicate blacks but to encourage positive traits in their descendants.

So she enlisted the aid of people like W.E.B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP, and Martin Luther King Jr., an original recipient of the award honoring Sanger's work, to promote that "humanitarian aim."

But Sanger's organizational offspring — as it were — is a devoted supporter of the Obama presidency, the right wing will say. Who is the social Darwinist now?

Frankly, I don't know what to think — except that it is wrong to introduce this into the political discussion. There's plenty of manipulation of the facts on both sides.

Yes, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood and is reviled by anti–abortion activists for her advocacy of reproductive rights.

And, from all outward appearances, Sanger was, indeed, a racist, but she tolerated no racist policies within Planned Parenthood and, as far as I can tell, pursued no approaches that singled out any race for virtual extermination.

In other words, the Nazis may have been inspired by eugenics, but their objectives and tactics were their own. Sanger's motivation was responsible procreation, not destruction.

It is not responsible, however, to inject the words social Darwinism into the discussion. It re–focuses the debate on an issue that Gallup says is way down the list of priorities for most Americans in 2012.

Perhaps that was the reason for injecting that phrase into the political discussion. It takes attention away from the sluggish job picture and high gas prices.

And incumbents who haven't got much of a record to run on usually accentuate the negative.

For a man with no challenger within his own party, Obama is resorting to negative campaigning pretty early.

Abortion Provider Killed in Kansas

Dr. George Tiller, 67, whose Wichita, Kansas, clinic is one of the few in the nation that perform late–term abortions, was shot and killed while he was serving as an usher at his church in Wichita this morning.

A 51–year–old suspect was taken into custody this afternoon. Police have not released his name at this point.

Tiller's clinic, Women's Health Care Services, has been a magnet for abortion battles for close to 20 years. In 1993, the doctor was shot in both arms outside his clinic. The woman who was convicted of shooting him currently is serving her prison sentence.

I've read speculative articles today suggesting that pro–choice activists may retaliate for this, but I fail to see how that will enhance the debate. I know abortion is an emotional issue — on both sides — but retribution is not the answer, and it certainly won't bring Dr. Tiller back.

As I have said before, I believe what Bill and Hillary Clinton have advocated: Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

I also believe that those who provide abortions should feel safe in their workplaces. And they should feel safe when they attend services at their churches.

Abortion has been legal in this country for more than 35 years. If it is to become illegal now, let that be accomplished in an acceptable, legal manner.

Getting to Know Her

The American public already knew John McCain and Barack Obama pretty well. And Joe Biden's story has been in and out of the news over the years.

But nobody knew much about Sarah Palin until last Friday.

Seems like we're getting a lot of information in a short period of time.

Of course, both sides have been putting out their own spins that are often half-truths.

The Republican spin is that Palin was thoroughly vetted, although that doesn't necessarily appear to be the case.

The Democrats' spin on Joe Biden, to play into Obama's message of "change," is that he's just "Joltin' Joe" from Pennsylvania — even though he's been representing Delaware in the Senate for nearly four decades.

Well, it's been 24 years since Geraldine Ferraro became the first woman to run on a major party's national ticket.

Back in those days, I thought we had dealt with all the issues that went along with nominating a woman for national office. But it seems I was wrong.

I guess the media got a little obsessed, in late summer of 1984, with its inquiries into the financial status of Ferraro's husband. Even though Ferraro had one daughter in her early 20s and another in her late teens when she ran for vice president, I don't recall any public discussions about what Ferraro would do or advise if one of her daughters became pregnant.

But that's the situation that Palin faces right now.

Actually, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post thinks Bristol Palin's pregnancy is the "ultimate teachable moment."

Marcus observes that "[t]he unwed mother — or at least, the not-yet-wed mother — has become a more common (this is bad) and less shameful (this is good) phenomenon in 21st-century America."

Bristol Palin, apparently, has decided against having an abortion, and she plans on marrying the father of her baby.

That is the outcome that pro-lifers should want when a young woman has an unplanned pregnancy. And Sarah Palin has shown, by giving birth to a child she knew to have Down syndrome, that she is against abortion in her personal life.

She has, in fact, been outspoken in her opposition to abortion. And, it appears, her beliefs about abortion have been passed along to her daughter.

Sarah Palin now has the opportunity to be a national advocate for those who are pro-life. She can encourage women who are carrying babies with a chromosomal disorder, like Down syndrome.

And she can speak from experience about advising an unmarried daughter who becomes pregnant. That's an experience with which many American parents can relate.

The development with her daughter essentially does not change my initial impression of Gov. Palin.

When she was announced as McCain's presumptive running mate, the thing that struck me as remarkable about Palin was how unremarkable she is. (Well, except for the fact that she's a strikingly beautiful woman.)

She never seemed particularly quirky to me. I used to watch the "Northern Exposure" TV series, and she seemed pretty normal, especially when compared to the mostly eccentric residents of the fictional Alaska town of Cicely.

Then I found out that Palin's hometown of Wasilla is quite similar to Cicely. (That may or may not be a good thing, depending upon your opinion of the folks from that make-believe community.)

But many of the things about her would fit in nicely in the real places where I've lived. And with the real people I have known.

When I was a small child, for example, my hometown in Arkansas was about the size of Palin's hometown.

When I was growing up, many of the adults in my life owned guns (as Palin does). Few, if any, of them ever went hunting for moose, but they all took part in the start of deer season.

Palin's favorite dish, I've been told, is moose stew. Many of the people I knew when I was growing up were partial to venison steaks.

Recent inquiries have also uncovered the revelation that Palin's husband was charged with DUI when he was in his early 20s. That apparently is information that Palin voluntarily shared with McCain's vetting team. There is no indication of any ongoing alcohol problem, which probably means Todd Palin was a lot like many of the guys I grew up with. He drank some when he was young, had a brush with the law because of it and learned his lesson.

Abortion was rarely spoken of in my circle of friends, but I knew girls in high school who, like Bristol Palin, had to make a very personal decision. And I'm sure their decisions were influenced, at least to a degree, by any advice they received from their mothers.

Sarah Palin has taken the position that young people need to abstain from sexual activity. As I pointed out earlier, Bristol Palin seems to have embraced much of her mother's personal philosophy. But she doesn't appear to have embraced the part about not embracing.

I was a teenager once, and I agree with Marcus: "[T]alking about abstinence turns out to be easier than abstaining."

Now is Palin's opportunity to explain to the public why she believes abstinence is the best approach. But, given the recent developments, she should be aware that it isn't always a successful strategy.

That really shouldn't surprise anyone. Whether you're a parent or not, you know that parental advice was not always taken when you were a teenager. Has human nature changed since you were Bristol Palin's age?

The fact that Birstol didn't follow her mother's advice does not mean the advice itself wasn't sound — particularly in the modern age, when sexual activity can lead not only to pregnancy but also to an ever-expanding list of diseases — or that the messenger was ineffective.

But there are people who believe that it is naïve to tell young people to abstain. They want to know why Palin believes that is a strategy that can work.

"Being a teenager means taking stupid risks," writes Marcus. "The best, most attentive parenting and the best, most comprehensive sex education won't stop teenagers from doing dumb things. The most we as parents can hope for is to insulate our children, as best we can, from the consequences of their own stupidity."

Sometimes, it's hard to insulate adults, too. That's a question the Republican Party needs to resolve in this matter.

But it's not the only issue the Republicans need to resolve.

Elisabeth Bumiller suggests, in the New York Times, that the Republican vetting process — despite having about a three-month head start on Obama's team — settled on Palin too hastily.

Until only a few days before unveiling Palin as his running mate, Bumiller writes, McCain "was still holding out the hope that he could choose a good friend," like Sen. Joe Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, or former Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania.

But their pro-choice views precluded their selection. The probability of a revolt within the party was simply too great.

"With time running out," Bumiller writes, McCain "had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later."

This week is Palin's opportunity to demonstrate that McCain made a wise choice.

Either Way, It's Going to be a Landmark Election

---

"Politics isn't just a game of competing interests and clashing parties. The people of America expect us to seek public office and to serve for the right reasons. And the right reason is to challenge the status quo and to serve the common good."

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin,
Republican vice presidential candidate,
Aug. 29, 2008

---

John McCain's choice for running mate made it official. The election of 2008 will be remembered in the history books as a landmark, no matter who wins.

And right now, I think, it's anybody's guess who will win.

If the Democrats win, Barack Obama will become the nation's first black president. He's also the first black nominee on a major political party's ticket.

If the Republicans win, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will become the nation's first female vice president. She's the first female on a Republican ticket.

With McCain's selection of Palin, both tickets now are clearly outside the historic box.

I've been thinking about the implications of McCain's choice. I have a few thoughts to share.

• When I wrote about Palin as a potential running mate six months ago, I wrote about things like geographic balance and gubernatorial experience.
  
  Other things seem to have come up now that her nomination is no longer speculation but a virtual certainty.
• Here's a point I haven't heard anyone mention today (perhaps someone has mentioned it and I just haven't heard it):
  
  We have no Southerners on either ticket.
  
  If you count the first George Bush as a Texan (and some of the Texans I know don't because he was born in Massachusetts and grew up in Connecticut, although he spent most of his adult life as a Texas resident), the last election in which no bona fide Southerners were on either ticket was 1972.
  
  (Again, I suppose that requires an exception — some people consider Maryland a Southern state, because it condoned slavery and tobacco was its primary cash crop in the early days. If that makes Maryland a Southern state, then Richard Nixon's running mate in 1968 and 1972, Spiro Agnew of Maryland, was a Southerner.
  
  (However, I never have regarded Maryland as a Southern state because, while there certainly were tobacco planters in Maryland who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause, the state did not secede from the Union during the Civil War nor did it fight for the South.
  
  (And if a state didn't fight on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War, I have a hard time reconciling the inclusion of that state as a "Southern" state. Some people, however, use different criteria when making that judgment.
  
  (Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, if one considers Maryland a Southern state, then the streak between elections without a Southern nominee really has to go back to 1948 — although one tends to run into much the same issue concerning the home states of Harry Truman of Missouri and his running mate Alben Barkley of Kentucky.
  
  (And — to proceed even farther along this particular slippery slope — if Missouri is considered a Southern state, that means the streak goes back to 1940, where it definitely stops. No more exceptions to be made. There were absolutely no Southerners on either ticket in 1940.)
  
  Anyway, for most, if not all, of the last 60 years, Southern or border state candidates have figured prominently on national tickets. But not in 2008 (although, again, someone could raise an argument about Delaware — even though it had mostly ended the practice of slavery by the time of the Civil War and never seceded).
• In the past, my belief has been that historic "firsts" in American politics tend to be long on symbolism and somewhat short on a record of success.
  
  But, in 2008, it seems we can't miss.
  
  Both Obama and Palin are historic firsts. And, unless something wildly unpredictable happens between now and Nov. 4, one of them is bound to win.
  
  The other halves of both tickets — McCain and Joe Biden — are part of that "old white men's club" that represents the establishment. This year, though, one can be forgiven for seeing them both as transitional figures, serving as the bridges between their parties and the opportunities of the future.
  
  Voters can also be forgiven for wondering things about the selection of a female that they might not have wondered before.
  
  For example ...
  
  The Wall Street Journal is already talking about McCain's mission to "seize the momentum" from jubilant Democrats wrapping up their historic convention.
  
  How much political consideration was given to the notion of selecting a woman (only hours after the first black presidential nominee had given his acceptance speech in a football stadium filled with screaming, adoring supporters)?
  
  If Barack Obama did not head the Democratic ticket, would McCain choose Palin?
  
  Is she the Republican he feels is most qualified to take over the duties of the presidency in an emergency?
  
  I'll admit, it didn't hurt that Palin paid homage to the women who blazed the political trail ahead of her — Democrats Geraldine Ferraro, as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984, and Hillary Clinton, in her unsuccessful bid for the presidential nomination this year.
  
  I've heard many women in both parties praise Clinton's tenacity in her presidential campaign, and I know that many women came into 2008 believing they would have an opportunity in November that they could only dream of before — the chance to vote for a woman for president.
  
  Many blacks clearly felt the same way about Barack Obama. Obviously, both candidates could not be nominated for president. One had to lose — which means one candidate's demographic group had to be disappointed.
  
  Palin has the opportunity to fill the void left by Clinton's departure from the race.
  
  Women represent a huge share of the electorate. They don't vote as a bloc, but they do have similar (and related) needs and goals. In that sense, it appears that the Democrats' loss could well be the Republicans' gain.
  
  So, from the perspective of a nominee who wants to counter the groundbreaking nature of his opponent's presidential nomination, I think McCain probably did as well as he could.
  
  Earlier this year, I suggested that McCain might consider former Oklahoma Rep. J.C. Watts. For all the reasons I mentioned, I still think Watts would be a strong national candidate in the future. But, in hindsight, I think it would have been unwise to put a black man on the GOP ticket and expect that to make the Republicans more competitive for the black vote in November.
  
  Blacks have been voting heavily for Democrats for generations. And, while Watts might have been able to put a small dent in the Democrats' share of the black vote, frankly, it would have been unrealistic to expect a massive shift of allegiances in support of a conservative black candidate for vice president over a liberal black candidate for president on the other side.
  
  But the gender gap is alive and well — especially given the lingering animosity between Clinton's supporters and Obama's supporters.
  
  And that fact did not escape ABC News, which observed that Palin said, "The women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."
  
  That could be an appealing pitch for many women who deeply wanted to see someone from their gender on a national ticket this year.
  
  While it remains to be seen how Palin is vewed after a weekend of intense scrutiny followed by the exposure a designated nominee receives at a convention, she got off to a good start in her coming-out party in Dayton, Ohio, today.
• For those who were looking for a candidate who can reassure cultural conservatives, Palin seems to fit the bill:
  1. Palin is a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association.
  2. Palin has a son who was born in April with Down syndrome. Many women choose abortion when they learn they are carrying a child with Down syndrome, but Palin demonstrated her pro-life commitment by choosing to carry the child to term. He was with her family at the rally today.
  3. Palin is a supporter of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) — her running mate is not.
Add to that a few other "pluses" McCain acquired with his choice — Palin is charismatic. She has an engaging speaking style. She is the mother of a soldier fighting in Iraq, which reinforces McCain's support for the Iraq War. Most people can see, in Palin, their daughter or sister or mother. Or spouse. She appears to be capable of connecting with people on a number of levels. I think there are clearly some drawbacks, but it remains to be seen how severe they are:
• Primarily, I think, the fact that Palin has been governor for less than two years undercuts McCain's argument that Obama, with less than four years in the Senate, isn't experienced enough.
  
  (Although, from a strategic perspective, perhaps McCain wants to nudge the Democrats into re-opening this discussion — since it would focus on the presidential, not vice presidential, nominees.)
• Palin is the only major party candidate who isn't known very well by the American public. As a result, her statements and movements will be under a considerable public microscope for awhile.
  
  (Although she should be all right if she can avoid the problems that plagued Ferraro in 1984 — general missteps and her husband's financial scandal.)
• It seems to me that most, if not all, of Hillary Clinton's supporters also support most of the same things Clinton does. Thus, I think it would be a mistake for McCain to think that disaffected Clinton supporters will automatically support Palin and the GOP.
If you voted for Clinton, you're probably pro-choice. You're probably a supporter of universal health care. In short, you probably support most of the Democrats' agenda. Palin supports what has become the traditional Republican agenda. The question each of Hillary Clinton's supporters have to ask themselves is, will gender trump ideology? If most of them decide that it does, then this choice could be a big plus for McCain.
• That really brings me to this "gender gap" matter.
  
  I don't know if the gender gap really exists. If it does, it seems to me that whatever "gap" exists owes its existence more to racial differences than sexual ones.
  
  I was looking at some exit poll figures that go back to 1972, and in every election from 1972 through 1996, women voted for the party that won the White House. They also tended to give a higher share of their vote to the Democrat than men did — although it's worth noting that President Reagan enjoyed a rare (for Republicans) double-digit victory among women in 1984, the year the Democrats put Ferraro on the ticket.
  
  Since 2000, women in general have favored the Democrats, even while the nation has been electing the Republicans.
  
  Now, the numbers among white women tell a somewhat different story.
  
  White women, who have tended to represent about 43% of the overall vote, have been more inclined to vote for Republicans than their black and Hispanic sisters, who have been responsible for adjusting the overall women's vote to reflect greater support for Democrats.
  
  Actually, since 1972, white women have voted for the Democratic nominee only once — in 1996, when they voted to re-elect Bill Clinton.
  
  Perhaps the Republicans are conceding the black vote to the Democrats — which, considering the historical pattern, would be a prudent thing to do, even if the Democrats hadn't nominated a black man for president.
  
  Perhaps Palin is intended to be a lure for the white women's vote that Republicans may be fearful of losing in 2008.
• It's also worth noting that McCain turned 72 today. If he's elected president in November, he will become the oldest man elected to that office.
  
  Given the demands and pressures of the presidency in the 21st century, as well as McCain's own cancer history, it's understandable to be concerned about how secure his future would be.
  
  Well, the future is always uncertain.
  
  Even when you think you're on solid ground, that ground may well turn to jelly in an instant if an earthquake strikes. And, as someone who grew up in the famed "tornado alley," I've seen homes and businesses that were reduced to rubble by angry winds that were calm only minutes before.
  
  But ...
  1. if the Republicans win, and
  2. if McCain does not survive his term in office, then
  
  I wonder if Palin will be reviewing the early episodes of "Commander in Chief," the Geena Davis TV show from 2005-2006?
  
  The show began to change in inexplicable ways midway through the season, but the early episodes were intriguing explorations into the issues facing a woman who unexpectedly ascends to the presidency when the incumbent dies.
  
  (By the way — an interesting trivia point. Davis' character in "Commander in Chief" was named Mackenzie, and many people called her "Mac." In reality, of course, the 2008 presidential candidate is John McCain — and some people have taken to calling him "Mac.")
• I don't consider myself old, but it's a little unsettling for me to realize that both national tickets have a candidate who is younger than I am. That's a "first" for me!
  
  For the record, I am 48. Obama is 47 and Palin is 44.

Oh, and by the way ...

Mark October 2 on your calendar. That's the day that Biden debates Palin.

It will be interesting to see if Biden, who has something of a shoot-from-the-hip style, can tone it down in the debate. (If memory serves me correctly, that was the same challenge being issued to Vice President Bush before his 1984 debate with Ferraro.)

Giuliani Struggles With Social Conservatives

One of the most influential social conservatives on the scene today, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, wrote in a column in today's Politico that Rudy Giuliani's pledge to appoint "strict constructionist" judges is not enough to make up for his more moderate views on abortion in general and Roe v. Wade in particular.

"Many of [Giuliani's] supporters are using the language of 'strict constructionism' to defend their dubious decision and to urge 'pro-life' Americans to join them," Perkins writes. "They are making the spurious argument that only judicial appointments matter."

Perkins points out that, during a Republican debate at the Reagan library in May, Giuliani said it would be "OK" if a strict constructionist judge repealed Roe v. Wade and he said, “It would be OK also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent.”

That's not the kind of language that will attract social conservatives and Perkins wanted to make sure that point was not lost.

"For us and for most Americans," Perkins wrote, "[strict constructionists] mean that decisions like Roe cannot stand. It is precisely on this point that Rudy Giuliani dissents, and it’s a fact that every 'pro-life' American should know and that every 'pro-life' commentator should frankly admit."

Clearly, if Giuliani appears to be on his way to the Republican nomination, there will be a battle among the ranks over abortion. Wait and see.

Some high-profile conservatives have been supporting Giuliani because of his credentials from 9-11. But the thing that a lot of people forget is that 9-11 was Election Day in New York City. The election was halted that morning when the attacks were well under way, and the voting was re-scheduled, to be held at a later date.

If the attacks had occurred 24 hours later, there would have been a mayor-elect in New York -- and Rudy Giuliani's political career might not have received the boost it received as a result of the attacks.

Someone else might well have been "Mr. 9-11." (Except, I guess that would be "Mr. 9-12.")

Romney, Huckabee Favorites At The Values Voters Summit

Republicans have been gathering in Washington this weekend to appeal to Christian conservatives at the Values Voters Summit.

There never really was any question that abortion would be a hot topic at the summit.

And former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani deserves credit for facing up to his stated position, which isn't very popular with Christian conservatives. Giuliani is pro-choice, and he didn't walk away from that position to win some votes.

"Isn't it better that I tell you what I really believe instead of pretending to change all of my positions to fit the prevailing winds?" Giuliani asked his listeners.

The sentiment was admirable, but not successful.

Even though Giuliani spoke about his own faith and his reliance on religion being "at the core of who I am," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finished first in a straw poll of Christian conservatives at the Values Voters Summit, receiving 1,595 votes (27.6%) from 5,775 that were cast online, in person or by mail.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee came in a close second with 1,565 votes (27.1%), Texas Rep. Ron Paul was third with 865 votes (15.0%) and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was fourth with 564 votes (9.8%).

The remaining 20% were divided among the other Republican candidates. In that group, Giuliani received just 102 votes (1.8%).

Based on that, it appears that Giuliani has considerable work to do to convince Christian conservatives to support him in both his bid for the nomination and, if successful, his bid to win the general election -- even though Giuliani tried to reassure the restless Christian conservatives by telling them that he would appoint conservative judges, support school choice and demand victory in Iraq.

Those are all issues that are important to Christian conservatives -- but it appears that abortion remains the No. 1 issue with that voting bloc.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, who emphasized his own conservative credentials and his opposition to abortion, appears to be increasingly irrelevant to the presidential campaign. He received only 81 votes (1.4%).

Among those who voted in person at the summit and heard all the candidates speak, Huckabee, who criticized the "holocaust of liberalized abortion," was the clear choice, receiving 488 of 952 in-person votes (51.3%). Romney received 99 in-person votes (10.4%).

It's odd that Romney should win the overall vote, based on his support for the anti-abortion cause. His original position was pro-choice, but he has switched to pro-life since deciding to enter the presidential race. Romney also has some work to do to persuade Christian conservatives that Mormons are Christians. About half of Christian conservatives polled are unconvinced.

On the Democratic side, there's some news from Iowa. The Storm Lake Times endorsed Delaware Sen. Joe Biden for the presidency, following Biden's recent visit to the small town of Storm Lake in western Iowa. The newspaper told its readers that Biden has the "professional skills and ... the personal strength" to be president.

What Giuliani Needs to Do

Fred Barnes, in an article in The Weekly Standard, says Rudy Giuliani needs to demonstrate to social conservatives that he's committed to an anti-abortion posture when he speaks to the Values Voter Summit in Washington next weekend.

Polls have shown that more than a quarter of Republicans would vote for a third-party candidate who has the support of social conservative leaders if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

Some social conservative leaders, like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Gary Bauer of American Values, are speaking unfavorably about Giuliani's social conservative credentials and his efforts to score points with social conservatives, such as his pledge to appoint "strict constructionist" justices to the Supreme Court.

As Barnes points out, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but enough people voted for Ralph Nader in Florida to deprive Gore of that state's electoral votes -- and, thus, swung the state and the election to George W. Bush (with the help of the mostly Republican-appointed Supreme Court).

A mass defection on the scale that polls are suggesting almost certainly would doom Giuliani in the general election, Barnes says.

It's a reasonable argument. But I think there's another question that social conservatives who have supported the Republican Party need to ask themselves.

The Republican Party has had an anti-abortion plank in its platform since 1980. In nearly 28 years, we've had 7 presidential elections, and Republicans have won 5 of them. Republicans controlled the Senate from 1981 to 1987, and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 to 2007.

With all those Republican office-holders -- who, apparently, owed their elections in part to the anti-abortion movement -- why has nothing been done on this issue?

That's not something that can be blamed on Giuliani.

Even if social conservatives defect to support a pro-life candidate, they've already had all the cards on their side for many years -- and nothing has been done.

What else did they need?