::::::::
As the truth about the McCain/Palin campaign slowly drips out, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who's noticed a strange pattern surrounding the Republican ticket: an insensitivity to victims of abuse.
First, we learn that Sarah Palin was actually warned by a judge that her continual disparaging of her ex-brother-in-law's reputation constitutes a form of child abuse, and that she needs to cut it out.
We have also learned that Palin is opposed to abortion rights, even in the cases of rape and incest, saying that she would "choose life" even if her own daughter was a victim.
Adding cruel insult to injury, it turns out that Palin's mayoral administration - the only municipality in the state to do so - actually charged rape victims for the rape kits needed to collect forensic evidence!
Then there's the bizarre argument that has been used to defend Palin's behavior in "troopergate" - that she was protecting her sister and nephew from abuse. Regardless of whether her ex-brother-in-law was, in fact, abusive, it's an odd response to abuse. And it undercuts the appropriate response to suspected abuse, especially for those of us who don't happen to be governors.
Then, of course there's the bizarre ad that the McCain/Palin campaign put up, actually attacking Barack Obama for voting to educate kids to protect them from sexual predators. Planned Parenthood, thank goodness, asked the obvious question: what does McCain have against protecting kids from predators?
And finally, there is the fact that Alaska leads the nation in sexual assaults.
Anyone else disturbed by this pattern?
