WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
In today's Wall Street Journal, the editorial page weighs in on the Michelle Obama v. Sarah Palin food fight that we've been heartily discussing, and debating, here. Like Mike Huckabee, the Journal casts its lots with Michelle Obama--and its editorial is spot on in its analysis.
The editorial begins:
The first lady has emphasized more nutritious school lunches but mostly encourages parents to make sure their kids eat healthy and exercise. Mrs. Palin sees a big government plot. "What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat," Mrs. Palin recently said on a talk radio show. "Just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions."...
No one hates the nanny state more than we do, but Mrs. Obama isn't exactly ordering up Lenin's Young Pioneers. Adults do have an obligation to teach children how to live, and that includes adults who are role models by dint of their national prominence. JFK asked kids to do chinups for the Presidential Fitness Award, and Nancy Reagan asked them to "just say no" to drugs.
But here's the real zinger--the editorial continues with this quote:
"Health-care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: We could save a lot of money and a lot of grief by making smarter choices," Mrs. Obama said recently. "It starts by ending destructive habits and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise."
Sorry, our mistake—that was actually Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in her 2009 State of the State address.
I prefer the Sarah Palin of 2009, who celebrates personal responbility, to the Sarah Palin of 2010, who expends her energy crusading for our "God given right" to eat junk food.
I don't want to accuse Palin of speaking in insincere soundbites--but what the heck. Is she just trying to rile up her eager base with her "just leave us alones" and her "get off our backs"? If you compare those notes to her 2009 State of the Union, what other conclusion can you come to? The Journal only quotes one sentence from her 2009 State of the Union, but here is that sentence in context:
We have alarming levels of heart disease, diabetes, childhood obesity--and all of these maladies are on the rise. Now, I won't stand here and lecture--for very long--but health care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money, and a lot of grief, by making smarter choices.
It starts by ending destructive habits, and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise. In my case, it's hard to slack when you have the ever-present example of an Iron Dogger nearby. But many of us could use a little more time in our great outdoors--and when you live in the Great Land, there's no excuse. Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future.
How seriously can we take someone who so easily jumps on and off a bandwagon according to which gravy train she thinks will lead her to political influence?
- Comment (139)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
Isn't this a tempest in a teapot ?
Michelle was probably misquoted when she said parents couldn't be trusted to make the right decisions.
The truth is that obesity has gotten worse, schools have soda machines in the hallways, and Coke/Pepsi pay them big money to do it and achieve "early branding" success with future consumers, either money or scoreboards or other form of bribery. The teachers unions have sucked the money out of schools, so the other programs like sports are starved for cash ( that and Title IX).
Palin is the anti- establishment figure nonpareil. She pricks the balloons along the way.
Dec '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
At the risk of being a bore I will repeat a point I made in a previous thread about this subject:
Any politician opening his or her mouth about the obesity problem in the United States who doesn't immediately talk about ending farm subsidies for corn, wheat, sugar, and soybeans is pretty much admitting a total lack of interest in actually addressing this problem.
Those subsidies are bad for our health and helped cause the problem. Rescinding them, moreover, would merely STOP the government from doing something rather than encourage the government to aggrandize more power to itself.
Jun '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
First, what I eat will be the government's business, and then what I hear and read will their business. They just want to protect my mental health, along with my physical health. They don't want me to get "bad information." You have to stand up to these people before it's too late. The process starts slow.
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
But what's wrong with Michelle Obama being a good role model to children? As the WSJ notes:
Sep '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
This is small potatoes.
Palin just made another huge political blunder by going after the First Lady because now she looks like Michelle's counterpart rather than Baracks counterpart. Ultimately this isn't a major issue, not worthy of Palin's time, that is if she were, you know, a serious politician.
What is it about women and food?
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
Is anyone else dismayed by Palin's reversal of her position since 2009?
Sep '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
It shows that she's impetuous, and unable to take the long view that is required to play the chess game that is Presidential politics. You're quite right, in her eagerness to score points against the Obama administration, she's tossed one of her principles overboard. I should say, in her defense, that there's a world of difference between using the Presidential bully pulpit to use moral suasion and using federal legislation and regulations to do so.
Sep '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
A foolish consistency is the...
OK you got her she has not been consistent. I think Americans are pretty tired of being preached to. One difference is that Mrs. Obama's initiative will end up in legislation governing school lunches, don't believe me just watch. In a year when the government can't even pass a budget, when a repeal of DADT without a replacement policy is heralded as a big achievement; forgive us for being sick of big government even with the warm smile of Mrs. Obama.
May '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
Based on the excerpts above, I see a crucial difference. Governor Palin's 2009 remarks concerned individual accountability for diet, exercise, etc. -- Michelle Obama's position is (or seems to be) centered around protecting children from all malevolent influences that cause obesity - including their parents if necessary. It's for the children, don't you know ...
Lecture me all you want, but keep your hands off of my kids, Mrs. Obama.
Jun '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
But what's wrong with Michelle Obama being a good role model to children? As the WSJ notes:
Dec 27 at 8:06am
Apart from preexisting drug laws--laws that weren't Nancy Reagan's doing--her "just say no" was little more than motherly advice. There was no weight (of office) behind it. That's what's different about drugs. You can't very well say "no" to food. A first-timer can easily say "no" to cocaine, and avoid the problem completely.
May '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
No one hates the nanny state more than we do
This, when used to support a nanny state argument, is sefl-contradictory.
George Rapp is right! The operative word in nanny state is "state". Ross Conaster is almost right! Give these people any authoritah, and they'll use it. But when did Palin advocate regulation? How is this inconsistent with her statement then?
Sarah Palin is right! On general principle. Emily, alas, is suffering the emotional toll of breaking up. And Crookshanks is, well, a cat, of whom there are none in the Palin household.
Sep '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
Palin said..... but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future.
One of the things I look for in a candidate is someone who isn't enthralled with themselves. Palin seems to believe everything she does and says is just fine.
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
In 2009, Palin advised exercise and healthy eating (just as Michelle Obama is doing today). But in 2010, Palin is all of a sudden crusading for our "god given right" to eat s'mores.
I would call that a foolish inconsistency.
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
etoiledunord
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
But what's wrong with Michelle Obama being a good role model to children? As the WSJ notes:
Dec 27 at 8:06am
Apart from preexisting drug laws--laws that weren't Nancy Reagan's doing--her "just say no" was little more than motherly advice. There was no weight (of office) behind it. That's what's different about drugs. You can't very well say "no" to food. A first-timer can easily say "no" to cocaine, and avoid the problem completely. · Dec 27 at 8:38am
And JFK's chin ups?
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
George Rapp
Based on the excerpts above, I see a crucial difference. Governor Palin's 2009 remarks concerned individual accountability for diet, exercise, etc. -- Michelle Obama's position is (or seems to be) centered around protecting children from all malevolent influences that cause obesity - including their parents if necessary. It's for the children, don't you know ...
Lecture me all you want, but keep your hands off of my kids, Mrs. Obama. · Dec 27 at 8:29am
Palin has said:
Jun '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
etoiledunord
Emily Esfahani Smith, Ed.
But what's wrong with Michelle Obama being a good role model to children? As the WSJ notes:
Dec 27 at 8:06am
Apart from preexisting drug laws--laws that weren't Nancy Reagan's doing--her "just say no" was little more than motherly advice. There was no weight (of office) behind it. That's what's different about drugs. You can't very well say "no" to food. A first-timer can easily say "no" to cocaine, and avoid the problem completely. · Dec 27 at 8:38am
And JFK's chin ups? · Dec 27 at 8:50am
The chin up program was all carrot, no stick. Michelle likes to wield a stick, me thinks.
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
Franco: This is small potatoes.
Palin just made another huge political blunder by going after the First Lady because now she looks like Michelle's counterpart rather than Baracks counterpart. Ultimately this isn't a major issue, not worthy of Palin's time, that is if she were, you know, a serious politician.
What is it about women and food? · Dec 27 at 8:12am
Astute comments. I agree. She's trying to put herself on one side of a class issue (subliminal message: real, non-elite Americans are fat and eat Twinkies; I'm on your side, real-America); but she's inadvertently succeeded in putting herself on the wrong side of a gender issue (only women think about fatness so much).
Oct '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
Bottom line... who would you trust to make a recommendation and let it end there? Experience suggests that Sarah Palin is capable of speaking to a personal issue with the high probability that it will go no further. Do you expect that anyone connected to the Obama Reich would do the same?
Jul '10
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
I agree and disagree. Palin by attacking this nanny state viewpoint, is appealing to a large extent to her base. These are the simple, straightforward working people who are fed up, sick and tired of being told by just about everyone in a position of relative power to themselves how to live their lives. Don't smoke, don't drink, don't eat fatty foods, have sex only when married, and on and on. Meanwhile, they are confronted daily with the grotesque overindulgence by the very people lecturing them. They feel resentment, and Palin is giving their resentment voice. On the other hand, Franco, you are absolutely right. She is putting herself in position relative to Michelle rather than Barack. However, there are times when it appears that the real power in that marriage is Michelle, so maybe....
Re: WSJ Sides with First Lady in Palin v Obama Food Fight
I've always thought that the president and first lady could and should use their influence and bully pulpit to promote behaviors (as opposed to legislation) that would benefit individuals and society. If I were president (or first lady), I would promote the idea of giving to charity. I'd argue that the more we give to charities that do important work, the more people are helped, in the most efficient way possible, and the less government needs to step in. I might actually supplement my advocacy of charity with proposed legislation that would expand deductions for charitable donations.
While I'm deeply suspicious of the Obamas, I think Michelle is acting within her bounds on this one. And if government wants to change the food offered at government schools to include healthier offerings, that's fine by me. If I don't want my children eating food supplied by the government, I can be a good mother and make them a sandwich at home.