That Palin’s “walking the walk” counts as so extremely virtuous says much about the level of hypocrisy we have come to expect from self-described “conservative” politicians. But how much credit should someone who thinks abortion, and any form of birth control that might sometimes interrupt a very recently fertilized egg’s development, is an immoral killing, really get for deciding that Down syndrome does not warrant such a deed? For a politician who throughout her adult life has tried to cut off the rights of any girl or woman-whatever her beliefs or circumstances or level of despair-to have a safe, legal abortion at any stage, unless there is a imminent threat not just to her health but to her survival, is it really extraordinarily admirable to have foregone an abortion because your baby is likely to have special needs that will take (someone’s) extra time and energy? Giving birth to Trig seems the only ethical choice for a woman with Ms. Palin’s views, and quite likely, given her status as an extremely prominent public figure in Alaska, the only practical option. But so what? While some politicians who have children with disabilities advocate, others just posture.

McCain has drawn praise for personally expressing concern about autism and endorsing the “epidemic” language. There are several big catches, though. First, a condition-specific focus is neither efficient nor humane: dyslexia, for instance, can readily be, but rarely is, remediated. Second, McCain is not committing to additional research.

Third, while environmental causes of autism, asthma and other mounting problems need to be explored, that will do no good without the political will to regulate polluters. Finally, McCain has been on the wrong side on education and health policy, opposing full federal special education funding and claiming that many students with “behavior problems” are undeservedly in special education. His favorite judges have rolled back disability rights. He has opposed legislation to support people in communities rather than institutions. His health care plan disastrously affect people with disabilities, AKA “preexisting conditions.”

McCain’s overall education policy and Palin’s call for unfettered “choice” for parents of children with disabilities are cynical ploys consistent with their preference for fierce, divisive attacks over policy compromises. They call for vouchers which they know theycannot get through Congress, instead of looking at how to protect and improve the public educational system on which the vast majority of children – especially those with disabilities whose needs take more money and time to address – must rely. Ironically, one of the district court constitutionally based decisions that gave rise to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 involved just the kind of “voucher system” that McCain and Palin now advocate: the District of Columbia gave vouchers to students with disabilities, which they could use in private programs, but the market failed to do its thing, causing many students to be waitlisted, indefinitely, for educational services. Vouchers may feel good, and for catastrophically failing school systems, I would not rule out pursuing them, but they are a distraction, not a broadly applicable solution.

Palin’s record is no better. She is getting credit for an Alaska autism commission’s “bold” recommendations, which are in fact a huge step backwards. In the mid-1990‘s, Democratic Governor Tony Knowles appointed a visionary leader in applied behavior analysis – Todd Risley, who had applied his analytical framework to autism and to early childhood inequality in America – to head early intervention. He fully recognized that universal access would be difficult in a dispersed state like Alaska, but knew children needed real intensity, and he worked hard to make it happen. Under Knowles’ Republican successor, that momentum ended, and it has not come back. Palin’s “commission” under Palin recommended watered down services-if the federal government paid for them! This is in an oil-rich state that gives natural resources revenue BACK to its citizens: imagine the implications for a country with actual budget constraints.

What is historic about this ticket is not that Trig will visit and maybe someday live in the White House, but that we would see a radicalized GOP that regards mildly progressive taxation that would increase burdens on wealthy tax payers by a few percentage points as “socialism,” calls the earned income tax credit started by Nixon and expanded by Reagan “welfare,” and calls for taking the very essence of insurance-spreading risks-out of the health care system.

With Obama and Biden, we have a ticket that has made solid, specific commitments regarding childhood and adult disability issues. Obama and Biden have voted to fully fund IDEA and understand that appointing judges willing to enforce government accountability matters at least as much as dollars. Neither has a child with a disability, but both have demonstrated real commitment to people less privileged than themselves, and both have pressed for increasing accountability for educators of all children. The Democratic Party, and the judges appointed by its presidents, have been far stronger on disability issues for the past 20 years. However much we may regret this, “bipartisanship” in this area has gone the way of “moderate Republicans.” Even with real “friends” in the executive branch, advocacy will not become easy, individually or collectively. But having an Administration committed to disability rights, headed by lawyers who understand civil rights, and by bright, well-educated Democrats who seek to improve, not “shrink” government, is a critical next step.