Answer Jake’s Question

If one of Obama's daughters were 17 and pregnant, we'd be hearing about how Democrats are contributing to the moral disintegration of the US in general and our youth in particular. We'd hear that Obama has no chance at combatting unwed motherhood as a cause of poverty in the black community, because he had no influence even with his own family.

I personally don't care about Palin's daughter, except that it demonstrates the failure of the conservative movement's insistence on abstinence only as a means of birth control for American youth. Palin's family is wealthy enough so that her grandchild will be well taken care of, and has enough influence to insist that the baby's father wed the mother, but if their circumstances were different, the child would grow up in poverty, and the mother would be handicapped in continuing her education.

As the GOP deals with Hurrican Gustav and Hurricane Paliln, the Right says we on the left are afraid of Palin or Jealous of her because we are dong what he should have done Vetted Her! What we are upset about is the hypocrisy of McCain to (for months) label Barack as an empty suit, has no experience, etc., etc. and then to pick a VP "beauty queen" who is up for ethics investigation, wwho is completely unqualified, and shows very little intellectual capacity just because she is a Woman in a dishonest attempt to Steal Hillary women, is prepostorous and foolhardy (fools rush in where Angels fear to tread). And we are terrified because John McCain is old and not in the best of health and there is a very REAL possibility that this woman who is not fit to be President could be president. That is outrageous! And a slap in the face to the American people. It is dangerous and reckless and this man has to be stopped! This — McCain’s Rush to Judgment — has unveiled the true persona (a dangerous and reckless man who puts party first before the country)! His campaign motto "Country First" is a lie and a deception — something GOP is good at, but not anymore. The Truth shall Prevail!

Being an eternal optimist, I really do think that the reaction would have been much the same if the story was about Obama's daughter. There would be squaking from the hardcore conservatives (Limbaugh would probably say something really stupid) but I think most of the mainstream pro-life orgs would lay off. I personally find it a bit sad when a teenage girl with a world of opportunities in front of her makes the decision to have unprotected sex that leads to a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with ideology, it is a bit sad in any case.

I don't know for sure if Palin would be picked if she was a man. I think that the Palin pick is primarily about the maverick brand and the fact that Palin is female is an added bonus. But I'm not sure if Palin really would have made it on to any real short list if she wasn't a woman. So her gender put her on the map and then her political persona clinched it.

Somewhat off on a tangent but, hey it's an open thread.
What would be the reaction in "wing-nutia" if it came out that either Obama or Biden had ties to a successionist party like the AIP?

Also, to those on the right, please explain how you can be a patriot and advocate secession.

1. I suppose it would depend on Obama's reaction. If he forced her to have an abortion for political concerns, that would be a problem, making it look as though his "pro-choice" stance meant "pro-abortion."

2. No. This is McCain's attempt to pander to disaffected Hillary supporters. If a man had Sarah Palin's record, the vetters would have probably said, "He needs more seasoning."

Let me posit something else about Sarah Palin. In terms of how she advances McCain, she both helps and hurts him. She helps his case that he is a maverick who doesn't care about The Establishment (true or not), and she helps him solidify the Republicans' base in his favor- there's a story on NPR about how McCain got a large increase in the number of donations after choosing Sarah Palin. How does she hurt him? Her positions on certain issues are strikingly similar to certain ones espoused by El Gran Jefe Señor Arbusto (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc.). The choice of Sarah Palin shows that the 2000 McCain is either lost or was an aberration to begin with. Also, Sarah Palin is such an unknown that things like her daughter's pregnancy and "Troopergate" were bound to pop up. It is possible that there are other, worse things in her past. And her resume (or lack thereof) undercuts McCain's whole "experience" argument.

I think we'll be hearing more about AIP in the days and weeks to come, but you raise a fair point. Given the constant meme about "socialists" and "communists" etc. when talking about Democrats, I would think that a Dem being in the AIP would have been called a disqualifying factor for the presidency by his detractors. Just IMHO.

1.) They would find some way to make it an unpleasant metaphor for D's in general.

2.) Absolutely not. It's a tactical, political move, not a responsible one.

Btw, Bob Herbert is convinced all the Palin stuff is a deliberate distraction from the all real issues. I tend to agree with him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/opinion/02her...

1. I will ask a different question. If the Obama's had a teenage daughter and a newborn, would we have wondered if Michelle was the grandmother, not the Mom?

As for the original question, I don't think any fair person could say the Right wouldn't behave just as badly as the Left did towards Palin, but not any worse. Really, how could they, given how bad the reaction was, with the notable and truly classy reaction by Obama himself?

Part of what sends me off the rails here at times is the constant meme that the Right is full of nothing but slanderous meanies, and the Left nothing but scrupulous sweethearts. Both side are equally to blame for the toxic atmosphere in Washington, which pre-dates Bush, and is bi-partisan in its source.

2. Of course not.

I will second Austin's point about many liberal analysts in general, but add that in the predominantly right wing forums I frequent (the comment sections and chat sessions for Hot Air, for example) the exact opposite is *always* seen. Democrats are never, ever painted in a positive light and are constantly referred to as unamerican, commies, socialists, etc. and their candidates and pols referred to in the worst terms, and their supporters as "hippies, nutroots, traitors" etc. Sadly, that's just how a full contact sport like politics is played out these days. I comfort myself in regularly chastising both parties, though lately there hasn't been much to write about Dems until they begin making some news again.

One other thing I would like to add. Absolutely, Bristol Palin should be utterly off limits to those on the left. In return, she must absolutely, not be used as a shied if Governor Palin is asked any uncomfortable questions, and, she should not be used as a weapon to hammer the left.
Joe Scarborough is going nutso condemning the media for it's coverage of this story (it did come out in a press release after all) but it doing it, he is mentioning "the Governor's 17 year old daughter who is pregnant" every 5 seconds. To truly "protect her, you mention Barack Obama's statement. Say we are following his lead and MOVE ON. I noticed that Republican's for Obama closed down that discussion thread following the Senator's lead.

First: In the first case, there would be a lot hypocritical hysterical finger pointing from the right, just like there is from the left with the Palin now.

Second: I answered the first but I'd rather see Jazz answer a different second question. “Would Barack Obama, given his breadth of experience, history, views and issues, been selected by Democrats to be the nominee over Hillary Clinton if he was white?”

Extra Credit Question: If you consider my question to be racist, was Jazz's question sexist?

Kritt11 nails it with this:
If one of Obama's daughters were 17 and pregnant, we'd be hearing about how Democrats are contributing to the moral disintegration of the US in general and our youth in particular.

The "family values" crowd are pushing an agenda and it didn't even work with Palin's own daughter. And if you don't believe KR11 point, read this little gem from Reason about a Hoover Institute article:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/128295.html

Show Respect for Women: Ban Contraception!
Has Humanae Vitae's proscription against contraception been vindicated?

Ronald Bailey | August 26, 2008

Forty years ago, Pope Paul VI issued Humanae Vitae, the encyclical arguing that contraception is against God's will. In celebration of its 40th anniversary, Hoover Institution research fellow Mary Eberstadt has written a passionate and subtly misleading essay in the religious and public policy journal First Things arguing that Humanae Vitae's specific predictions of social harm arising from widespread use of contraception have been vindicated. "The encyclical warned of four resulting trends," writes Eberstadt, "a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments."

The link to Mary Eberstadt essay:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_arti...

Let’s begin by meditating upon what might be called the first of the secular ironies now evident: Humanae Vitae’s specific predictions about what the world would look like if artificial contraception became widespread. The encyclical warned of four resulting trends: a general lowering of moral standards throughout society; a rise in infidelity; a lessening of respect for women by men; and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments.

I answered the first but I'd rather see Jazz answer a different second question. “Would Barack Obama, given his breadth of experience, history, views and issues, been selected by Democrats to be the nominee over Hillary Clinton if he was white?”

These are all hypotheticals, of course, (which was the point of the discussion in the first place) but I would have to answer that question "no." If that makes me a racist in the eyes of some, so be it. His strong oratory skills would still have catapulted him into a "rising star" position, I imagine, and we might have seen him taking a run at the Illinois governor's mansion in 2010, but no... I'm guess that if Obama were white, we wouldn't have seen him shooting for the White House until he was closer to his mid-fifties.

If one of Obama;s daughters was 17 and pregnant, you'd see a lot of head nods and polite "tsk tsk" and then the Rovian attack machine ( the very same one that created a push poll claiming McCain had an ethnically-engendered "love child", wink wink) would go into full swing.

What America needs is an Elie Wiesel for these jackals and bring the light of Truth, Justice to these carrion feeders and the main stream -corporate owned-media. Hold media accountable for doing their jobs! Sure, FAIR is doing a passable job, but when the smears come from the great big lie factory, it's hard to debunk when by repetition falsehood becomes factoid....
Obama yet again shows the class that McCain lacks ( and by lack of parental virtue Mrs. Palin(g by comparison).

Kritt11 nails it with this:
If one of Obama's daughters were 17 and pregnant, we'd be hearing about how Democrats are contributing to the moral disintegration of the US in general and our youth in particular.
I agree that there'd be a lot of that, but also fully believe that you guys would be condemning that reaction. So why not just condemn all the smearing of the Palins too? Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it, and 'they started it' doesn't excuse your own lapses.

And I'd also assert that there are plenty of conservative and center right blogs where the commenters do make negative smears but the frontpagers don't egg it on or condone it (esp bloggers like Ed Morrissey.)

The other point to bring up when discussing Obama's rise is just how demoralized the Democrats were after the 2004 elections. I think (I could be wrong) that Obama was the only Democrat in the class of new Senator's that year. There was a pretty major vacuum of "up and coming" talent that year. I think this factor might very well have contributed to his rise as much as his race. Did his race have something to do with this rise? Yes, perhaps, and no it isn't racist to observe it, it is racist however, to say he has no other talents, and he beat the much touted Clinton machine simply by being black.

Governor Palin, was chosen in a similar vacumm of up and coming talent. She is also an engaging and charismatic person. The difference is, she has not demonstrated the same sort of political judgement as Obama. Both she and McCain are "decide on the fly with your gut" kind of people who don't seem to really look at the consequences of their decisions. It isn't sexist at all to say we have had too much of this kind of decision making for the last 8 years.

Kathryn brings up a good point. There has been a great deal of depression and lack of enthusiasm in the GOP during this two year cycle, what with all the dire forecasts of gloom and doom for the Republicans in congressional races this year. This has also suppressed the new up and coming talent pool, making the few new faces like Palin and Jindal shine out all the brighter.

"It has nothing to do with ideology..."

Sorry, but abstinence-only sex education is ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY and prevents young people from having the specific information they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

Yes, it is very sad. Sad that this girl's mother refused to allow her to know the facts of life as she moved through puberty.

"I personally don't care about Palin's daughter, except that it demonstrates the failure of the conservative movement's insistence on abstinence only as a means of birth control for American youth."

I wouldn't even go this far because it's not like anyone claimed that abstinence only education would magically stop all teen pregnancy and I try to refrain from arguing points based on anecdote. Really it just highlights the need to talk about statistics to see if it's working (it's not...although CS would argue that's not the point) in general.

Also, I might be in the minority but all the focus on the VP stuff is way off base. Obviously all the focus on her personal life is, but even further, I'm not sure why there is so much emphasis placed on either her or Biden's prior positions as opposed to the role they see themselves playing in an Administration or if they had to become President.

Biden crafted some stuff I strongly disagree with -- is he going to try to expand on that more while in the Executive or would his focus be on other things? What exactly do they see his role as being? Cheney is enormously powerful in some respects but stays out of others completely...

Same goes for Palin. There was a quote that basically said she'd be the "apprentice" to the "master" on foreign policy...is that accurate? It implies she wouldn't be able to give much input on anything? Can she? Yeah she burdened her town with tons of debt as mayor through bad choices, but what's that have to do with the federal budget?

Converse, where do you get this information? You do realize that people that politically oppose school based education regarding contraception (and I'm not even clear that that's Sarah Palin's position, but for the sake of argument lets say that it is) don't necessarily want to withhold that information from their kids- they just want the right to teach it in the home, in an environment which also involves discussion of moral values and emotional aspects of sexuality. Where do you get off making assumptions about what the Palins have taught or not taught their daughter?

And are you seriously trying to make the case that teenaged pregnancy would never happen if all schools taught 'safe sex' practices?

My answers:
1. Probably the reaction would have been much the same. An ancillary question is, How would McCain have handled it?

2. Probably not. And yes I think it's obvious the selection was based on politics and ideology, not qualifications or readiness to lead. If it were the latter, anyone else on McCain's short list would have been a better fit.

As for DWSUWF's ancillary question: “Would Barack Obama, given his breadth of experience, history, views and issues, been selected by Democrats to be the nominee over Hillary Clinton if he was white?” I'm not sure, but I think it's quite possible. I was too young to remember directly, but it seems to me his candidacy had many similarities with JFK's. Back in those days JFK's Catholicism was considered a detriment (at least to many who weren't Catholic). He overcame that by being an inspiring figure. Obama is much the same in those respects. So there's that. But there's another part to the question: Hillary Clinton. Being the only woman in the race, she had that identity politics thing going for her as well. Plus, Bill was considered "the first black president". So if Obama wasn't in the race she probably would have had an advantage in that demographic as well. Considering that, it's hard to say. But if Obama was white, running against a bunch of other white guys (not named Clinton), I'd say he probably would have won the nomination fairly easily.

What would the response be if Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and his wife Michelle had a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter?

As there are stereotypes that are being applied towards the Palin family, others would most likely be applied towards the Obamas: inner-city blacks having younger mothers, pro-choice promotes irresponsibilities, questions on religious grounds, etc. It would not be, as is being asked by the Palin family, respectful silence. This is politics, after all.

Would Sarah Palin, given her breadth of experience, history, views and issues, been selected by Sen. John McCain as his running mate if she were a man?

Not at all. Several analogies to Dan Quayle have been made since the announcement; were a man with the same circumstances and criteria picked, there would have been even more.

Two separate thoughts here:

Would it be advantageous for the Democratic Party, at this point, for Barack Obama to invite Bob Barr to the presidential debates?

CStanley: There are paragraphs that I could spend on the issues of schools and sexual education. Most of it boils down to: not everything gets taught at home, nor at school, yet society gets the result. We need to find a solution that works better than what we have now.

Peter: My point is that there are wild assumptions being made about what Bristol Palin was or was not taught, because I think any rational adult knows that teenagers will engage in risky behavior in many cases regardless of what their knowledge level is. I find it very intellectually dishonest to take an individual case and pretend that it proves a point, particularly when doing so also drags a young woman's personal life into the public forum.

CS - You ignore the point I made about the Reason blog about the reasoning behind pro-life anti-contraception. The MoralMajority crowd opposed the "choice options" because:
1) a general lowering of moral standards throughout society
2) a rise in infidelity
3) a lessening of respect for women by men
4) and the coercive use of reproductive technologies by governments
Well the Reason essay says none of these points are true. If thats the case, then the MM crowd only has its religious ideology left, and as the Reason essay states, its not right.

This questionaire should be twofold; asked first of us bored intellectuals on the internet...lol...and second of the actual voting public out sweating in "real" jobs right as we type our words here.

To #1. It wouldn't matter. Haven't you noticed "The Anointed One" is untouchable because of his skin color? His blatant inexperience never seemed to be an issue...or at least it wasn't allowed to be lest inquirers be labelled "racist".

To. #2 This is a funny question. Sarah Palin was picked precisely to pick up votes from DNC-alienated women voters. A man simply wouldn't do in this election to affect the same. Qualifications are a second consideration. Her being attractive and young factored in to balance Obama's youth and vibrant appeal. It was a strategic choice. When you boil it down, most VPs througout time (with the notable exception of Baelzebub aka "Dick Cheney" and ex-CIA director G Bush Sr.) are somewhat insipid nobodies. Palin is at least not insipid. And she seems to have the raw material to impress as to leadership. She doesn't shrink from the camera and she rolls up her sleeves and gets busy. 45 years is a long time to be alive. Depending on what you do with those years, you can be even more mature and effective than a 72 year old.

For instance, I am younger than Sarah Palin and I think the hardships I've seen over time have carved me into a more competant individual than many my age. But I'm sure there will be some detractors here from that opinion! lol..

Rudi, I haven't read that entire essay and don't know enough about the specific positions of the Moral Majority to comment on that. i think Mikkel seems to understand my personal viewpoint, which is that preventing pregnancy and STDs shouldn't be the entire goal anyway. So, comparing stats about which kind of sex ed 'works best' is apples to oranges if you have different goals for what it means to 'work'. But again, that's why I think that parents shouldn't be undermined in how the subject is taught to kids; I don't object at all to comprehensive sex ed programs as long as they don't MISrepresent the level of safety that can be afforded with condoms (or, for one very salient example, by substituting oral sex for intercourse, as many kids now have the mistaken understanding that that's 'safe', and rates of certain STDs have skyrocketed as a result.) School programs should also not undermine the teaching of morality by creating the impression that 'everyone is having sex during adolescence anyway, so here's how to do it safely.' That's not to say that we should be naive about sex among teens, but when authority figures present information in certain ways, it actually can lead to increased sexual pressure on kids (particularly girls, who need to be empowered to say no if they're truly not ready for sex.)

Sarah Palin was picked precisely to pick up votes from DNC-alienated women voters.
I think that's one of the biggest misconceptions about her selection. True enough that there's probably a hope that she'll pick off some disenchanted PUMAs, but that's certainly not the only reason for the pick. She energizes the base, convinces the socons that McCain is their guy, and polishes up the maverick and reformer image; plus she brings the drilling issue to the forefront at a time that that's a winning issue for the GOP. So there are multiple reasons for the pick, certainly not just trying to pander to women.

The Republicans are hypocrites whose attitude is " Do what I SAY, NOT as I DO".
Her daughter can be taken out of the equation, BUT NOT Ms Palin stand on abortion, sex education and woman's rights.
And we can question her judgement as to why she would want to start a career as a VP with a 5 month old Down Syndrome child. And leave her daughter across the country during a time when an unmarried pregnant girl would need her mom the most.
The Republicans questioned the Edwards ability to govern with the breast cancer issue, turn around is fair play.
She is being pushed by the republicans as their answer to the angry Hilary Clinton voters. She was chosen by the religious right but no one wants to talk about it or call them out on it.

mgardener: when you use the same smear tactics as those you criticize, you have become that which you pretend to hate. You can say that 'turnabout is fair play' but that doesn't change the fact that you've exposed yourself as an unprincipled opportunist; you obviously don't really oppose personal attacks, only the ones that might hurt your preferred party or candidate.

Yeah, unlike those un-hypocritical Democrats that tell us to conserve and save the planet, but fly private planes all over the country to give 'environmental' speeches, or own huge, energy inefficient houses, or have huge, catered affairs to discuss world hunger, or tell us how the Republican Party is the evil step-child of Corporate America while taking in more donations from said Corporate America than the Republicans.

I could go on and on. This is the crap that just keeps me going off here - the holier-than-though attitude from the Left that somehow they are just not as hypocritical, venal, mean-spirited, etc., as the Right, or that there or no decent people on the Right, only the left.

This attitude has always been prevalent at Kos and DU, but has been infecting TMV more and more over the past few years.

CStanley: I'll agree with you, up to a point. I also firmly believe that one cannot accurately determine what children are taught from their behavior. In the majority of instances, I believe that a child's behavior should not be used against the parent for the very reason that you state. The exception to this is when the children are used by the parents to strengthen their own image (be it political, religious, etc.).

I like keeping things somewhat light in conversations, but also want to relay my point. For example, let's say that I am a proponent of the belief that dying one's hair unnatural colors results in unhappy teenagers. If I'm a private citizen, and my son or daughter comes home one day with lime green hair... I'm going to have to deal with it as such. Sure, some friends might tease or sympathize with me privately, but that's about it.

The difference possibly emerges the moment that I assume the role of political (and sometimes public) figure, but especially when I include that belief into my political platform of intended public policies. If I espouse the notion that all children should be banned from having dyed their hair, and my child is found to have done so... that fact is fair game to be used against my set of beliefs.

Bringing this back to Sarah and Bristol Palin: I don't want to see this one instance of teenaged pregnancy used to bludgeon sexual education discussion. I would prefer, instead, that statistics do that. Sarah Palin has become a political figure, desiring to push her belief system onto all Americans (given her intended office); as such, the fact that her own daughter did not follow that belief system is indeed a fair subject to include. (Note: I mean Bristol's situation as a refutation of that belief system's practice, not any detailed information on her as a person).

To the first question, I agree with Kritt. For the record, one of the reasons I love Barack is that he and Michelle have overcome their backgrounds, got great grades and have raised a model family. Also Barack and Michelle seem to have an honest relationship, trust each other and are happily married. It's great to see these qualities in anyone and even more so in leaders.

To the second question, she (or rather he) would not have been selected to be on the list in the first place. It seems that McCain chose her at the last hour because he wanted someone "fresh" and who could energize the GOP. If the Gov. of Alaska was a man, he would have been more thoroughly vetted and his minuses would have outweighed his pluses.

To one of the ancillary questions, if Obama had been white would he have been the Dem candidate? I think Obama would defintely have been nominated. He was raised in Hawaii to a single mom, after law school he choose to work in Chicago's Southside, including working with people who had been laid off form their jobs at steel mills, so he would have appealed to the blue collar men. His time in Chicago also gave him experience with African Americans. As a (white candidate) Obama would not have received the same amount of support he received from African Americans, but he would have received more support from blue collar men. Hillary would have won the women's vote. The Muslim smears would not have been as effective against a white Obama as a black Obama (since "Muslim" is code, in many circles, "Not one of us"- which is easier to pin on a black guy than on a white guy who worked hard and succeeded on his own merits).

Peter, of course the analogy you use is frivolous though, because kids dying their hair doesn't involve moral questions that potentially involve killing a human being, if one believes that a fetus is a human being. That's why there's no comparison; people who are prolife can't condone the 'choice' of abortion because we believe that killing is involved.

And I still don't even agree with you that if a person opposes the legality of a certain behavior and then has a child that commits that act, that he/she should be attacked for that. Virtually all politicians would answer 'yes' to keeping the current prohibitions on hard drugs, for example, but I wouldn't call into question their sincerity on that belief if their children were in rehab.

I'm not a big fan of the "would"-style of counterfactual. It's generally one short step from the reasoned response to the rampaging id wielding some wishful fantasy against reality.

But this is what I wonder: What would have happened if McCain had selected Huckabee?

I think he would have gotten all the same benefits of base-pandering.

And I think he would still have been kind of a maverick.

Though he would have lost all the supposed Hillary-related benefits.

Special added bonus: He would have gotten a known quantity.

What did McCain think he was doing?

A new question to toss in the mix. On the Washington post blog, Eugene Robinson is asking, "would you do that to your daughter?" Look, Sarah Palin, made her decision and the cat is already out of the bag regarding Bristol. Some people are even making the argument that this humanizes the Governor, "she has the same family issues as we do."

I will take the opportunity to mention that there is no way in Hell I would subject my 16 year old daughter to that kind of fire storm, yet I do not have a political career so it is easier for me to turn down something that was never mine to begin with.

Would you or wouldn't you, why or why not.

I wouldn't--- because a 17 year old who is unmarried and pregnant has enough on her plate without becoming the center of a media circus. It seems cruel--

Also, MS Palin has a 5 month old Down syndrome child that requires much more attention than a normal child. And what if the governor becomes pregnant again? She's only 44.

Its a tough choice because obviously this is the opportunity of a lifetime, but you have to wonder how she answered questions like that from McCain and his team.

Well, as someone who has been at TMV for many years, I can say it is hard to stay here and be moderate if you are right-leaning.

Most of the old moderate right posters gave up long ago, and vamoosed. CStanley is one of the few that stayed, but has managed to keep from lashing out in frustration (I certainly haven't been able to show such restraint at times)

oops - wrong thread

That's secession- as in to break off. Not succession- as in to follow after.

~RN the grammar police.

and somewhere, Mrs. Garrett is saying "I told you so..."

How is it smear when mgardener merely points out a reality. A new mother of a five month old, and in a span of months a grandmother who will have to take an active hand with her daughter is going to have a tough time doing that and running off to various points on the globe she has yet to know about intimately and can confab with a president in a salient and insightful way. CS has a tough time taking it but can dish it out, I think- much like the GOP

CStanley, I'm enjoying the extended conversation... thank you.

Virtually all politicians would answer 'yes' to keeping the current prohibitions on hard drugs, for example, but I wouldn't call into question their sincerity on that belief if their children were in rehab.

There is a difference between being arrested for possession or usage of hard drugs and being in rehab for usage of said drugs. Not to equate the two morally, but pregnancy is not rehab for sexual activity - it's getting caught by life's consequences. A politician that literally brings their child to the stage when they run is implying that they raised that child upon the beliefs that they are publicizing. If a child is caught directly opposing that belief system, then the fact that they have done so should also be made public as a refutation of the implication that the politician offered.

Peter, of course the analogy you use is frivolous though, because kids dying their hair doesn't involve moral questions that potentially involve killing a human being, if one believes that a fetus is a human being. That's why there's no comparison; people who are prolife can't condone the 'choice' of abortion because we believe that killing is involved.

I wasn't talking about abortion in any sense during that example, but rather the support of abstinence-only sexual education. Sarah Palin has supported abstinence-only programs in schools. One would assume that this is a practice that she's espoused in her private life, as well (otherwise, she's being hypocritical, which is not the point of my argument).

The conscious decision by Palin to place her children on stage with her, in front of the media, actively invites scrutiny over whether or not those children have followed the belief system that Palin has implied she has taught them. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the primary one being that Palin introduced them as "supporting cast" to her character and perceived parenting abilities. Secondary to this is the implied argument that she has taught them her belief system, ie abstinence-only.

When one of those children - and a minor, at that - is found to have not followed that belief system as taught by their parent, then it is worth noting for two reasons. First, for some reason the belief system did not work for that child. Second, it weakens the argument brought forth by Palin that her children are supporting her belief systems. Note: I'm only talking about sexual conduct here, not pregnancy. The pregnancy itself is only proof to the fact that Bristol was sexually active.

We can save the discussion about abortion for a later time ;).

touche, remnov. I have jumped bail and been on the run from the grammar police for many years. Thanks for the correction. :)

I can't answer Kathryn's question about "would you or wouldn't you" as I am not part of the breeding population adding to humanity's numbers. I won't presume to speak for those who do. I can, however, imagine that the entire experience is incredibly difficult.

Should we judge Palin on "applying for the job" of VP with a special needs infant and a grandchild on the way? It might be an easy path to go down, but by the same token, there are many, many mothers and far too young grandmothers with no other option in this country who go out to work to support their families as there is simply no other choice. Shall we judge them as well for not going on welfare?

No, I don't think her choice to accept the nomination at this time of family expansion is a reason to chastise her. I *do* think the numerous other shortcomings in experience, credentials, and political baggage she brings to the ticket are more than enough reason to find her wanting.

OK, Peter, I get your point now that you were addressing the political issue of contraception education in schools, not political views of abortion of Sarah Palin.

But here:

One would assume that this is a practice that she's espoused in her private life, as well (otherwise, she's being hypocritical, which is not the point of my argument).That's absolutely not the case. A lot of parents don't want to withhold information from their kids about contraception, they just dont trust the schools to do it because of the implicit condoning of 'safe sex' that often goes along with such sex ed classes. Frankly I'm not at all clear on what Sarah Palin's views are on the school programs anyway; the only thing I've seen for certain is one of those questionnaires where she responded that she wouldn't support the kind of school program where condoms and birth control pills were distributed to kids. A lot of people are claiming that she's an extremist and has pushed for abstinence only programs in the schools, and I'm not at all convinced that that's the case. But in the event that it is so, it still doesn't mean that she'd be a hypocrite if she taught her own daughter, within the context of parental discussions involving values and morality of sexuality, that condoms and contraception were available if her daughter chose to follow a path that didn't agree with her parent's value system.

In my personal case, for example, I don't believe in using artificial contraception (we used natural family planning for spacing our children) and I do discuss my beliefs on that with my teenaged daughter- but I also make it clear to her that I want her to know the information about contraception and to make her own choices. We tell her that we hope that she'll develop the same values that we have, and we try to help her understand why we hold those values, but we still make it clear that we'll continue to love her if she makes other choices and we'll want her to protect herself. In addition, we make it clear that if she does agree with our values but slips up, we'd also want her to use protection.

In her case, she's also getting comprehensive sex ed in school and I happen to know the guy who's in charge of the curriculum and I trust that it doesn't have a bias toward a condoning attitude regarding teen sex. As long as it's value neutral and doesn't undermine the values that we teach at home, I have no problem with that, and I agree that a comprehensive program (which does explain that abstinence is still a very valid option and the only true way to stay 100% 'safe') is best for kids since some parents will neglect the teaching altogether.

RememberNovember, what have I dished out? I'm just defending a politician's family from excessive scrutiny (same as Obama has, in fact, in this case, by saying that these things shouldn't be part of our politics.)

I felt the same way about John Edwards' decision to enter the race despite his wife's cancer diagnosis (I think I even commented about that here, but I'm not sure.) Personally I couldn't see making a similar decision in my family- no way. And same with the Palin family- I couldn't handle a VP run without any kids, let alone 5 and some extra issues. But that's there business, and their decisions to make, not mine.

But these people are public servants whom we elect to do a job. As such, we need to scrutinize whether we think its reasonable to expect them to be able to fulfill all of the usual functions of the office.

Being cynical here, it appears that McCain did not put the "country first" with this pick, instead chosing to pander to the religious right and female vote with one fell swoop.

To Conspiracy Wingnut Sil:

To #1. It wouldn't matter. Haven't you noticed "The Anointed One" is untouchable because of his skin color? His blatant inexperience never seemed to be an issue...or at least it wasn't allowed to be lest inquirers be labelled "racist".


Funny, it's only the Right Wing Smear machine that labels him so. We see him as a regular guy with some good ideas.

and to your second point- Was Gerald Ford an insipid nobody? Teddy Roosevelt? They were able to step up. Palin won't be- she'll just surround herself with toadies who will foist her Radical Christianist agenda and become another puppet of the Rovian dynasty. People forge that he's the real boogeyman here. Is that any different from other radical religious groups?
Oh, but I forgot, she's a woman, so that's sexist.

That whole racist/sexist thing is kindergarten politics.

Rove is not the Boogeyman - he is the Anti-Christ.

At least try keep your metaphors straight.