Let’s See a Show of Hands Here…
Cidu Bill on Sep 2nd 2008
- Is there anybody who actually believes John McCain’s claim that he knew about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy before he named her as his running mate?
Filed in Bill Bickel, John McCain, Sarah Palin, politics | 113 responses so far
Oy vey Sep 2nd 2008 at 12:46 am 1
Either he was stupid-enough not to know, or he was stupid-enough to think nobody would find out. If it wasn’t for the whole Babygate thing (the rumors that the daughter gave birth to the Downs Syndrome baby, not Sarah), I think they would’ve tried to hide the girl’s pregnancy until after the general election. I guess the strategy of hiding the girl’s belly by having her always carry the baby didn’t work out so well, huh?
solarrhino Sep 2nd 2008 at 01:29 am 2
I don’t know. Time magazine has an article saying that the pregnancy was no secret in Palin’s home town of Wasilla. I’m kind of amused by the interest about it. It’s kind of like when Tom Brady was first reported to be a baby-daddy. Everybody at work was aghast! What, they didn’t think he was having sex?
Molly Sep 2nd 2008 at 02:19 am 3
What I don’t understand is how Palin can think that putting her daughter in the national spotlight and then heading off on a grueling political campaign (which could culminate in a move to Washington D.C. in January) is offering her daughter “support” at this difficult time. What kind of family values does this reflect?
Rick from Little Rock Sep 2nd 2008 at 02:39 am 4
Apparently Palin has opposed sex education in schools, in favor of promoting abstinence programs instead. I think that this is an excellent example of how THAT works!
I have to agree with Molly, what kind of mother puts her daughter through this kind of thing? That’s totally irresponsible.
But it’s really funny watching the talking Republican heads on TV trying to explain how her experience as a mayor and a couple of years as a governor makes her qualified as president. My city has a GREAT mayor with 15 years or so experience in that position, but I wouldn’t trust him with anything more important that making sure that the garbage gets picked up and that the police department keeps on working.
Blurgle Sep 2nd 2008 at 04:30 am 5
What concerns me is the possibility that the poor girl is being railroaded into marriage (at 17!!!) to suit her mother’s political aspirations. “It’s okay! She’s getting married! That expunges the SIN!”
And yes, this is the common result of abstinence-based sex education: kids who still have the same urges as every other kid in the history of the world but who don’t know how to protect themselves from the consequences of their actions. I fear a return to the “good old days”, where most first babies were born within seven months of the wedding. (Such was the case in 19th century Britain. Even Winston Churchill was born seven months after his parents’ wedding, and at nine pounds he wasn’t premature.)
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 05:06 am 6
To be fair, while Palin is opposed to abortion other than to save the mother’s life, she is not opposed to birth control and does not advocate abstinence-only “sex education.”
Kit Sep 2nd 2008 at 06:52 am 7
I think it’s a smart move. Now the Republicans have an in to the Hollywood crowd. At least the Spears family wil be on their side. Oh, and, Molly and Rick? Welcome back from the nineteenth century. Dads have been putting their families “through this” since we created elected office. How is it different for a mother?
Seismic-2 Sep 2nd 2008 at 07:26 am 8
Bush hung into the support of the “family values” conservatives even though his Vice-President has a gay daughter who is raising a child with her long-time partner. McCain needn’t worry - once Palin’s daughter turns 18, it will be a non-story.
Carl Sep 2nd 2008 at 07:39 am 9
Bill, actually as a gubernatorial candidate she DID advocate abstinence-only.
Nicole Sep 2nd 2008 at 08:18 am 10
Bill
This from a questionare that Ms. Palin answered when running for govenor
3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
You can see the entire questionare and her answers here:
http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html
Eric Sep 2nd 2008 at 08:55 am 11
Thanks for the link to the questionnaire. This one in particular caught my eye.
11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
No matter where you stand politically, that’s just funny.
Molly Sep 2nd 2008 at 09:15 am 12
Kit - It isn’t any different for a woman or a man, IMHO. I would hold a father to the same standards as a mother in this position. It’s still thrusting the young girl and her unintentional pregnancy into the national spotlight and it’s still taking swathes of time away from the family at a time when the family should be pulling together. This would be true whether a father or a mother was the parent in question.
Life offers all of us moments where agonizing choices have to be made. True character shows in the decisions we make at such times.
Nicole Sep 2nd 2008 at 09:38 am 13
Eric - would that be because the Pledge of Allegiance wasn’t written till 1892, and the words “under god” were not added till 1954 ?
Donn Sep 2nd 2008 at 09:45 am 14
Is this a ‘Sharia’ thing? / you know, where the right wing, conservative, religious fundalmentalists, go around beating you with sticks, because you broke some archaic community law. Recently, five women were shot and buried alive, because they wanted to marry someone not chosen by the family members. NOW (circa 2008) are we going to judge someone because they had S*x out of wedlock. Now we are going to judge a person unfit for Executive Office position because of something everyone else has done since the beginning of time. What a bunch of arrogant elitists. Grow up.
Lothar Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:15 am 15
Oy vey -
> the rumors that the daughter gave birth to
> the Downs Syndrome baby, not Sarah)
Her political convictions give strong
evidence that Sarah is the mother.
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:20 am 16
Well, MATH gives strong evidence that Sarah is Trig’s mother: The new baby has to have been conceived in March, a couple of months before Trig was born.
Nicole Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:23 am 17
Donn - that Ms. Palin’s daughter is pregnant is a family matter and has no effect on her ability to be part of the government.
What I do think has an effect on her ability to be a mayor, govenor or vice president is her position on issues. Her daughter’s pregnancy brings to the spotlight her opinion on sex education which, as was pointed out, is ‘abstinence only’. Her daugter’s pregnancy also points out the effectiveness of that kind of sex education. While her stand on sex education is one of the many reasons I would not vote for her, her daughter’s pregnancy is not.
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:25 am 18
Nicole, she didn’t really answer the question as asked, did she?
Though the blogosphere overwhelmingly labels her as being against birth control, Time magazine — even with its clear liberal bias — writes: “She is Christian and pro-life, but also a supporter of birth control: she’s a member of Feminists For Life (FFL), an anti-abortion, pro-contraception organization.”
March Hare Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:26 am 19
@Donn - OK, I’m confused by your post. It doesn’t appear to me that it is the “right wing, conservative, religious fundalmentalists” who are judging her daughter. In fact, it seems funny that it is the exact opposite, seeing as it is the “right wing, conservative, religious fundalmentalists” crowd that is making Palin a VP nominee in spite of it. Frankly, if Cheny can have a gay daughter, then why not? It seems to be the liberals making a big deal out of the whole thing.
I also find it funny to suggest that Palin shouldn’t run so she can “support” her daughter. Her daughter is almost finished with high school and will be 18 soon enough. Good grief! Since when did having a baby at 17 become so traumatic? It wasn’t that long ago that teenagers “got hitched” and moved out to the wild, wild west. Where did our pioneering spirit go, anyhow?
Nicole Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:35 am 20
Bill, the question is poorly phrased to start with, but I read it as having two parts:
1) Do you support abstinence-until-marriage sex ed
2) Will you support abstinence-until-marriage sex ed to the exclusion of explicit sex-ed
likewise I read her answering the two parts
1) “Yes” (I will support abstinence-until-marriage sex ed)
2) “the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support”
Eric Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:41 am 21
@Nicole - Exactly. It almost reminds of the time when some legislator was discussion whether English should be the national language and she said, “If English was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us.”
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:44 am 22
The question was phrased as “Are you in favor of A, like a good Christian, or are you in favor of ALL these things listed under B, which would make you a godless heathen?” — and since Palin wasn’t entirely opposed to EVERYTHING listed under B, the only politic answer was “I am opposed to this specific most-egregious item listed among B”
The Ploughman Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:55 am 23
I, for one, don’t understand the comic at all ; )
(For the record, I actually enjoy these side discussions)
Mark in Boston Sep 2nd 2008 at 11:06 am 24
I presume Ms. Palin is a mother who takes care to do the best for her children, and educated her daughter in areas where she felt school education was not sufficient, so here are the questions I want to ask her:
1. Was it your intention to raise a daughter who would be pregnant out of wedlock by age 17?
2. If not, what is the ideal outcome (for example, complete abstinance until happy marriage at age 20)?
3. What did you teach your children that you believed would foster that outcome? What forces worked against it?
4. Would you teach your children differently based on what you know now?
5. With regard to sex, marriage and reproduction, what is the best outcome for all the children of America, and what public policies will best foster that outcome, based on your personal experience and on whatever sociological evidence you are aware of?
Cindi Sep 2nd 2008 at 11:15 am 25
I found it amusing that the Palin’s are requesting privacy for their daughter at this time. If privacy was what they wanted Mrs. Palim should not have accepted the position on the ticket. That act alone caused to spot-light to swivel in Bristol’s direction.
Pinny Sep 2nd 2008 at 11:19 am 26
Re: #11:
Without taking political sides (which is my preference in a non-political discussion group like this one), I believe that it is possible to interpret Gov Palin response as:
SP: Not on your life. If [reference to God] was good enough for the founding fathers [when they wrote the Declaration of Independence], it’s good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
Of course she could just have slipped up — not unlike other mistakes by previous presidents of both parties, or even more recently by Sen. Obama himself in a speech back in May: “I’ve now been in fifty…seven states? I have one left to go.”
Donn Sep 2nd 2008 at 11:27 am 27
March Hare ___ Apologies for lumping all of THEM together, as if they all belonged in one political party. Ignorance and petty gossipers only belong to the party of petty ignorance.
Molly Sep 2nd 2008 at 11:32 am 28
March (#19) Is that your reaction in general to the unintentional teen pregnancy rate? “Ain’t no thang - happened all the time 150 years ago.” Or is that just reserved for this occasion?
Scott Sep 2nd 2008 at 12:01 pm 29
I’ll just note that the Creator mentioned in the Declaration was Jefferson’s deistic god, not the Christian one, and that the Declaration is not the law of the land. The Constitution, which is, very intentionally does not mention any god at all (except maybe in the date.) A slip of the tongue during a speech is a far different thing than showing total ignorance in the answer to a questionnaire.
Lola Sep 2nd 2008 at 12:11 pm 30
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/palin-laughs-as-opponent_n_122776.html
We’ll be seeing lots of this stuff in the next couple of months. “Nice” lady.
Nicole Sep 2nd 2008 at 12:41 pm 31
Bill
I see your point — you are reading her answer to part two as “I would not support the explicit sex-ed, but I would support school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools”
I have to disagree, her support of abstinence-until-marriage sex education (which I think is very clear) is in direct opposition and to some degree mutually exclusive of school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools.
JimJ Sep 2nd 2008 at 01:12 pm 32
The pregnancy may have been well-known in Wasilla, but the governor’s office was still not admitting it until after she was named.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/report_palins_spokesperson_did.php
I’ve seen news stories saying that McCain’s campaign didn’t even check out the local Wasilla newspaper as part of their vetting, so I doubt they heard about it as general gossip unless she told them herself.
As for rushing them into a marriage — note that they haven’t set a date, even 5 months in. Since she herself “eloped” 8 months before her first kid, that actually shows quite a bit of patience, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the engagement gets broken or delayed after the election. (I hope not, because I hope the kids are actually happy together — I’m just pointing out that she isn’t actually forcing them to marry; only to say that they will.)
Nicole Sep 2nd 2008 at 01:31 pm 33
Pinny — I am all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I think you are stretching a bit here. This was not a question and answer session, but a written questionnaire that was sent to all the candidates. She had time to word her answers carefully and review what she had written. There was no mention of the Declaration of Independence in the question and assuming that her response was in reference to that document is a huge leap.
ty Sep 2nd 2008 at 01:32 pm 34
Imagine that! A teenager who didn’t listen to her mother. Clearly the mother is unfit for public office.
As for Bill’s original question, sure, McCain knew. In another discussion on this board, the topic is how a light is shone on every dark corner of a potential candidate’s life. Jon Stewart’s recent interview with (I think) the governor of Virginia gives us some insight to the process. I doubt if the Republicans are much different than the Democrats in this respect.
Nicole Sep 2nd 2008 at 01:58 pm 35
Ty — it is not her daughter activities that make her unfit but, IMHO, her stand on issues — in this case, sex education.
DPWally Sep 2nd 2008 at 02:23 pm 36
What do you think the Republican party’s right wing would be saying if *Obama* had a pregnant unmarried 17-year-old daughter?
(If you plan to quote, make 3 passes to remove nasty words before posting it.)
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 02:38 pm 37
Or worse yet, DPWally, what if it turned out Obama’s mother had been a unmarried teenager pregnant with HIM?
DPWally Sep 2nd 2008 at 03:02 pm 38
I don’t think that’s worse, it would just add to the backstory of a kid who rose from humble background. I was subtly (maybe) hinting at the racial insults that would be thrown at an unmarried 17-year-old black girl.
DPWally Sep 2nd 2008 at 03:04 pm 39
That should be unmarried pregnant 17-year-old …
(Why, whenever WordPress slows to a crawl, does it accuse me of posting too fast?)
Patrick Sep 2nd 2008 at 03:09 pm 40
CIDU Bill’s point, I think (if I may be so bold) is that Obama’s mother really WAS an unmarried teenager pregnant with him. I can’t say we’ve heard a lot of mainstream Republicans screaming about that. (Though I can’t speak to what they’re saying on the blogs of the extreme right. I’d be afraid to ever even peek over there.)
Pinny Sep 2nd 2008 at 03:16 pm 41
This has been a nice diversion.
So it seems from this dialog that right-leaning folks will give the benefit of the doubt to right-wing candidates and left-leaning folks will give the benefit of the doubt to left-wing candidates. And both will have the opposite reaction to the same type of news about the other side’s candidate. Big surprise there.
I, for one, cannot wait for the next scheduled CIDU, LOL, EWWW, Arlo, etc. to show up. {And, yes, I have tried to help them along by sending in a few recently myself but they did not made the cut, so I am counting on you guys to come up with high quality candidates…er…comics.)
DPWally Sep 2nd 2008 at 04:15 pm 42
Pinny: Perhaps, but with a strange nuance.
The hyperpartisan and moralist elements of the right wing consider illegitimate pregnancy a sign of inferior character. When it involves a right-wing candidate, they pretend they find it a sign of good character. The hyperpartisan element of the left wing does not believe unwedded pregnancy shows bad character, but pretends it thinks so when it involves a right-wing candidate.
So both hyper-groups are being honest when something like this involves a lefty candidate, and both are being dishonest when it involves a righty candidate.
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 04:35 pm 43
Yes, Patrick, I was indeed going for a bit of irony — which, as we all know, is what they really use to pave the path to hell.
DPWally Sep 2nd 2008 at 04:40 pm 44
Ah, irony.
Last refuge of, umm, how do these word things work again?
Robert Warden Sep 2nd 2008 at 05:36 pm 45
Why should anyone give a rip if vice presidential candidate’s daughter is knocked up?
Bob Peters Sep 2nd 2008 at 07:17 pm 46
Wrong “scandal” to focus on.
Having once been a teenager myself decades ago, I’m pretty sure that her teenage daughter being knocked up doesn’t say anything about her. And the corporate media isn’t letting us in on how she’s handling it, which is the only thing about the pregnancy that would offer any glimpse into the woman’s character.
Trying to get her ex-brother in law fired from the Highway Patrol for divorcing her sister speaks volumes to the woman’s character, and it gives an ugly picture at that.
Oh well, still beats distracting us with the latest speculation about whether or not Madonna’s banging a ballplayer.
Mark in Boston Sep 2nd 2008 at 07:18 pm 47
When Clinton was President, the Republicans claimed that a man who cheated on his wife did not have the necessary character to be President. McCain cheated on his first wife but suddenly that’s OK.
Clinton lied to Congress under oath, and you can bet that no President will ever make THAT mistake again. Bush and Cheney gave “testimony” to Congress but refused to do it under oath.
Oy vey Sep 2nd 2008 at 07:19 pm 48
I wasn’t saying that there seems to be any way the Babygate rumors are true, in retrospect, but it’s interesting how fast those rumors flushed out the truth about other things that were being kept under wraps (or “under baby and large blanket”).
As for judging… I don’t think anyone blames the girl for doing what comes naturally (even though I don’t think anyone would think starting a family under those conditions at that age ideal). I think people are judging the conservatives who think abstinence-only education is the way to go, as well as particular parents who might seem to already have plenty of things going on in their lives without adding the stresses of campaigning and the national spotlight to the mix. And any time the appearance of any such attempts at deception come to light, people get riled up. Does kinda make you wonder what else might be just a little better hidden.
Bah Humbug Sep 2nd 2008 at 07:22 pm 49
Mark in Boston: Add his second wife to that list, since he was still living as a married couple with his second wife when he met #3 and started the eager pursuit (per his testimony in the divorce hearing, his own book, and interviews with #3 on Oprah).
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 08:40 pm 50
The most realistic perspective is that a great many girls her age — many of them, I’m sure, the daughters of men and women who are lining up to condemn both Bristol and Sarah Palin — are just one stroke of bad luck away from being in the same condition.
Charles Sep 2nd 2008 at 08:47 pm 51
Part of the statement from Palin and her husband:
“We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents.”
Huh. Bristol’s pro-choice.
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 08:51 pm 52
If Bristol’s pro-choice, then you can say it’s an even bigger deal that she’s keeping the baby, because she doesn’t believe that she HAS TO. If you’re opposed to abortion, then unless you’re willing to be a hypocrite, you really don’t have much choice in the matter.
Cedric Sep 2nd 2008 at 08:55 pm 53
Does anybody in their right mind think this boy would be marrying his baby’s mother if his mother wasn’t running for V.P.?
JimJ Sep 2nd 2008 at 09:15 pm 54
@solarrhino — The McCain campaign didn’t even bother to look through the archives of the Wasilla paper (let alone troll for gossip), because they didn’t want to tip anyone off. The only way they would have known is if she told them. They say she did, even though her spokesman was still (effectively) denying it.
@Blurgle — the candidate herself “eloped” 8 months before her first kid was born, so waiting 5+ months and still not announcing a date at least suggests the marriage, if it happens, won’t be forced.
@DPWally — I think it is a bit more subtle than both sides “lying” about candidates on the right. Those on the left aren’t upset by the sex per se; they’re upset by the hypocrisy and the belief that certain people are above the law. Those on the right don’t see themselves as above the law, they just see themselves (and their politicians) as forgiven, but don’t extend that generous assumption to people who disagree with them.
Cidu Bill Sep 2nd 2008 at 09:22 pm 55
JimJ, I was starting to write “Couldn’t they just have gone to WasillaHerald.com (or whatever) to get the information without tipping anybody off?” — but then I thought maybe McCain’s campaign people might be as web-savvy as he is.
Cedric, he probably still would be marrying Bristol: Palin is very pro-gun, after all…
Shuni Sep 3rd 2008 at 12:14 am 56
Cept Obama’s mother was an unwed young *white* girl- not back like someone said. He’s only 1/2 black, from his fathers side.
Winter Wallaby Sep 3rd 2008 at 12:35 am 57
DPWally, Pinny: I don’t think many liberals claim that unwed pregnancy involves bad character when it involves a right-wing candidate. I can’t speak for all liberals, but I certainly don’t. I thought what Larry Craig did was not a big deal, and I’m happy that Cheney accepts his lesbian daughter. When these things come up, mostly what I see is liberals pointing out the inconsistency of conservative dogma. Normally, right-wingers act as if unwed teenage pregnancies only happen because of bad, permissive parents, and wildly irresponsible teenagers. If the Republican party is adopting a more sympathetic position for everyone, then I will praise them from the bottom of by heart. If they’re just changing their position for major Republican candidates, then I think it’s perfectly appropriate to point out that they’re two-faced.
Winter Wallaby Sep 3rd 2008 at 12:36 am 58
DPWally, I have no doubt that if Obama had a pregnant, unmarried, teenage daughter, we would hear endlessly about how such things are the result of liberal, permissive, anything-goes, parenting. Cidu Bill, I don’t think the comparison at #36 works. In our society, parents are held partially responsible for how their children behave, since we figure (rightly or wrongly) that the way the parents brought them up had some effect on how the kids grew up. But it’s been a few hundred years since children were held even a little responsible for the sins of their parents. Even the right-wing blogs aren’t quite that right-wing. (Or maybe they are; like Patrick, I don’t want to peek over there to check it out.)
Cidu Bill Sep 3rd 2008 at 12:46 am 59
Yes and no, Winter Wallaby: Obama is, after all, being “blamed for” the religion of his grandfather…
Patrick Sep 3rd 2008 at 01:14 am 60
I should point out that, in addition to avoiding the blogs of the scary extreme right, I also steer clear of the blogs of the scary extreme left wing.
I mostly just visit blogs about comic strips.
Cidu Bill Sep 3rd 2008 at 01:20 am 61
Of coursed, Patrick, God knows what sort of discussions you might run into on some of those comics strip blogs..
Arthur Sep 3rd 2008 at 01:36 am 62
“in addition to avoiding the blogs of the scary extreme right, I also steer clear of the blogs of the scary extreme left wing.”
I’ve seen this used in sigfiles:
About the only difference between the wingnuts on each end of the
[political] spectrum is *which* civil right(s) they think we can do
without.
Seismic-2 Sep 3rd 2008 at 05:03 am 63
Ronald Reagan and Nancy Davis were married on March 4, 1952, and their daughter Patti was born 7 months later, on October 21. The family-values fans regards the (divorced) Reagan as their hero, so I doubt that they will have any problems with Palin’s daughter. Actually, they may have more problems with McCain himself, and the break-up of his first marriage.
JimJ Sep 3rd 2008 at 06:55 am 64
@Cidu Bill — Apparently the web archive is far from complete even now; to get the full background (particularly before the announcement) would have required at least a phone call or letter, and probably a trip.
Keera Sep 3rd 2008 at 07:14 am 65
I see I’m not the only who assumed/s that the majority of people get married first and then make babies. I was quite surprised to read a statistic here in Norway that showed that as many as half of all marriages typically start with a pregnant bride, regardless of century. And, interestingly, there is a slight statistical advantage to such marriages: Their tendency is to last longer than non-shotgun unions.
One thing that hasn’t come up, and which I’m curious about, is whether or not the sociodemographics of Alaska play any part in teen sex behavior. In Norway, we have an Alaska-like region, and it suffers from a lack of jobs and educational opportunities, and has a very high rate of teen pregnancy and abortion.
March Hare Sep 3rd 2008 at 08:15 am 66
@Molly - Actually, my reaction is to:
1. (to your point) The fact that some people don’t think young adults can raise a baby. The whole “support” thing is blown out of proportion, IMO. What ever happened to the idea that the father can help out?
2. It is really hypocritical for liberals to wonder if Palin should be running instead of “supporting” her daughter. I mean, here is a woman who has risen quickly through the ranks and possibly the White House. For years, feminists have stated that women can have it all. Now, one of their own becomes a VP nominee, a feminist dream, and suddenly women can’t have it all? Oh, that’s right! She’s a Republican.
3. The idea that having children is a liability rather than an asset. I could do a whole article on that point.
In addition…
4. The fact that the media wants to make such a big deal out of it in the first place. I think McCain made an excellent choice considering all of his other alternatives, and it will certainly make the election more interesting. Does the fact that her daughter made a mistake somehow make Palin less worthy? Well, to his credit, Obama isn’t going to make that argument.
5. It actually showcases one of the right’s main values: Life. She is having the baby (and keeping it), even though it isn’t necessarily ideal circumstances (not even graduated HS yet).
6. That liberals in particular seem to be on the attack. Normally, it is the “right wing conservatives” who are painted as not having compassion towards others, but this particular case seems to paint a different picture. Now, where is the liberal “tolerance”?
Bulthistle Sep 3rd 2008 at 08:50 am 67
What I don’t get is why teen girls who keep their babies are held up as role models for pro-life ideals. Is there some bias against adoption? Is it better to marry at 17?
Lola Sep 3rd 2008 at 11:21 am 68
In the scheme of things this is incredibly unimportant, but it’s been bugging me all week that Ms. Palin looked familiar even though I was sure I’d never heard of her before and finally I’ve hit on why. She looks amazingly similar to actress Lorraine Bracco who played the psychiatrist Melfi on the Sopranos. Has anybody seen Lorraine lately? Hmmmmmm.
DPWally Sep 3rd 2008 at 11:53 am 69
Winter Wallaby: “I have no doubt that if Obama had a pregnant, unmarried, teenage daughter, we would hear endlessly about how such things are the result of liberal, permissive, anything-goes, parenting.”
That’s what we’d hear if it was Biden’s daughter. Or Clinton’s. For Obama’s we’d hear a torrent of racist insults so vile they’d make Pat Buchanan blush. My brain refuses to convert them into words, but I’m sure you have some idea what I’m avoiding thinking about.
Cidu Bill Sep 3rd 2008 at 01:52 pm 70
I just read that McCain is buting a television ad to argue that Palin is more qualified to be prsident that Obama is. Does he really want to go there?
As it is, most of his campaign priority seems to be telling telling why they shoudln’t be voting for Obama. at some point, shouldn’t McCain be telling people why they should be voting for McCain?
Or is he counting on his ace in the hole — voters, in the privacy of the booth, deciding to vote for the white guy?
HM Sep 3rd 2008 at 02:21 pm 71
Really good column (op-ed) from the Washington Post today (She’s Nice, but Not Ready, Mike Doogan, in case the link doesn’t work).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202438.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I find the hypocrisy appalling–not so much the daughter as the crowing about how proud they are to have made the CHOICE to have their Downs Syndrome baby–no word about how she would like to take that choice away from everyone else. Also the extreme lack of experience to be next in line after potentially the oldest first term president ever (with history of skin cancer among other things).
I wish that were gettin lots more play and I hope the Obama campaign will hit that hard–looks like McCain is going to give hime the opportunity.
Nicole Sep 3rd 2008 at 02:28 pm 72
Hi Bill
Haven’t you heard ??? Palin is a foreign policy expert because Alaska is the closest state to Russia. Yes- there really are people making this argument.
Seriously, there are so many questions about McCain’s choice of Palin (that have nothing to do with her pregnant daughter)
Clearly he chose her to try to woo disaffected Hillary supporters to his camp, but she is so ideologically opposite to Hillary that I can’t imagine any Hillary supporters voting for the republican ticket.
Equally clear she was chosen to appeal to the religious right. But I think by appealing to that segment of the populations McCain may have alienated the independent swing voters, who I am guessing have had enough of far right politics.
Her lack of experience on the national stage, and her state level experience is only a year and a half. I am sorry there is no way she is more experienced than Obama.
Finally there is a big question about the whole vetting process of Palin. It seems that there was not a serious investigation into her background (local newspapers were not search by the McCain campaign), McCain met with her only once and spoke to her on the phone. The interview process for my current job was more intense.
McCain can only attack, because he doesn’t really have anything else to go with. I am sure there are people who will disagree with me, but if he is elected, we really can count on four more years of the same. He can’t say what his policies will be because if he does then the general public will realize that reality. So all he has are attack ads and scare tactics.
Cidu Bill Sep 3rd 2008 at 02:41 pm 73
I just remember the conventional wisdom in the aftermath of the Thomas Eagleton debacle: No candidate is going to let something like this happen again.
True, Bristol’s bun-in-the-oven doesn’t even remotely compare to Eagleton’s mental health issues, and in a sane world would be a non-issue; but in the real world, how can you not anticipate that it’s going to overshadow every other aspect of the candidacy?
It would be one thing if we were dealing with a VP pick with exceptional qualifications and one or two potential complications — but really, what does Sarah Palin bring to the table other than breasts?
Nicole Sep 3rd 2008 at 02:50 pm 74
Bill — she also brings a vagina. I know I am, and other women who are totally insulted that McCain thinks we can be swayed to voted for him simply because his running mate is a woman. The Daily Show had a great send up of Palin and her appeal to women voters.
You bring up another question: How could McCain not know that her soon to be grandchild would not cause a firestorm of controversy ? I really do think his VP pick calls into question his decision making abilities.
Molly Sep 3rd 2008 at 03:20 pm 75
March (et al)
I think here in the 21st century most women are aware that there’s a difference between “having it all” and having it all at once. Devotion of both mothers and fathers to higher quality family life has more importance now, it seems to me, than it did oncein my youth. In the early days of women in the workplace, there was more to figure out in order to cover all these bases. But we’ve been here a long time now. Family priorities are not the shame they once were and as our parents live longer and we find ourselves “sandwiched” we find that “balance” has replaced the rather 70’s idea of “having it all.”
However, balance means that there are times when we are called on to make some tough choices. It seems odd to me that she is asking for privacy for her family at this difficult time at the same time that she is shoving her entire family (and associated father of baby) into the spotlight. She could have made the choice for privacy. That she didn’t strikes me as selfish and hypocritcal.
Incidentally, I’m already sick of hearing all the coy little Rushisms that supposedly sum up my objections to Mrs. Palin, things like “Oh, her daughter got pregnant. She’s obviously not fit to be vice president.” Clinging to the belief that this is all we have against Sarah Palin is such a simple and convenient way to avoid all the very valid points that are actually being made.
Cidu Bill Sep 3rd 2008 at 03:23 pm 76
Well, Nicole, that’s just a matter of semantics: I happen to notice breasts first thing.
That being said, wouldn’t you think the final question for a potential VP candidate would be “Is there anything about your life, or the life of your family, that we haven’t yet discussed, that will cause the media to pounce on you like a pack of hyenas?”
Cidu Bill Sep 3rd 2008 at 03:26 pm 77
Molly, maybe McCain is smarter than we all think and this is all part of his plan: Everybody focus on Bristol’s baby rather than Palin’s lack of qualifications. The former is easier to defend than the latter.
(Lest anybody accuse me of partisanship here, I’m not overly excited about Generic Democrat running for VP on the other side)
Mark M Sep 3rd 2008 at 03:36 pm 78
Sounds like many of you have crucified her before she even gets a chance to talk. Really, what made it so “clear” that she was chosen to appeal to women voters? I could use that same argument that Obama picked Biden to secure the white vote.
Pinny Sep 3rd 2008 at 03:44 pm 79
It this yet the longest thread on this site? […he writes while extending the number of posts by one.]
Patrick Sep 3rd 2008 at 03:52 pm 80
Pinny,
I don’t know. But over at AmericanPoliticalDebate.com there’s a thread about “Wizard of Id” that’s now up to 798 posts.
March Hare Sep 3rd 2008 at 04:13 pm 81
@Molly: Not sure what Rushims you’ve heard lately, as I haven’t listened to him in a long time. I will tell you what I heard on TV this morning, though. It was a look ahead to the national news, and it was about … Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. It seems that the news media is fanning those flames of that being the only reason people are objecting to Palin.
As to those who believe she is less experienced than Obama, it is only by about six months when you think about it. Obama was only two years on the scene and then started running for president. Furthermore, being a governor is a different role than a senator, and it is one that more closely resembles that of president or vice president.
I agree that McCain should spend more time talking about his policies. However, I would say the same about Obama as well. It seems that both of them are dealing in generalities rather than real issues. The interviews with Rick Warren are about the closest either one of them has come to actually stating anything of substance, and yet I still haven’t heard a lot of specific about what they actually plan to do.
Looks like we have a long way to go if we are going to hit 798 posts
AMC Sep 3rd 2008 at 04:22 pm 82
She apparently thinks a gas pipeline is the will of God?
I am sure the McCain folks knew about that one during a vetting process that is certainly illustrative of the level of their much-touted competence.
The church website the video is from is shut down - they claim because of too much traffic - but the video of the speech (scroll down) was copied from from wasillaag.net - starts at about 3:40 on the video:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Pinny Sep 3rd 2008 at 07:33 pm 83
So….the winner is the one who had money down on 81 posts…er…make that 82 posts.
Congratulations!!
Oy vey Sep 3rd 2008 at 09:40 pm 84
Anyone catch Rudy defending Palin on GMA this morning? It was summed up nicely by columnist Karen Heller on the Philly Inquirer’s website today: ““Give the woman a chance to at least have two or three weeks of answering questions before you say, ‘Oh, she’s not prepared to be president or vice president,’ former New York mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani told ABC’s Good Morning America.
“There are only eight weeks to go until the election. Giuliani says the party’s presumptive vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, should be given a grace period.
“Republicans have been branding Democrats and the press ’sexist’ for criticizing Palin.
“However, Democrats and the press were equally tough when George H.W. Bush pulled an 11th hour surprise and named the relatively unknown Dan Quayle to be his running mate.”
Oy vey Sep 3rd 2008 at 09:51 pm 85
p.s. Isn’t a political party obligated to find fault with the candidates of the opposing party, whether the complaints are substantial or about something trivial like the candidate’s hairines or their multitude of pantsuits? Half of the job is building up your candidate, and the other half is tearing down his opponent - and both parties do it equally well.
And when did the job of the press become as cheerleaders for political factions? Sorry, but the press’ job is to dig up news and dirt, not to just regurgitate the press releases of the party machines. For better or for worse, that keeps a lot of good, qualified folks out of politics.
March Hare Sep 3rd 2008 at 10:31 pm 86
@AMC: Actually, I didn’t think the video was all that interesting, but the article was more illuminating. Frankly, if she believes that it is “God’s will” for this or that, it doesn’t necessarily make her a nut case. After all, if she didn’t think it was God’s will, then I doubt she would back it. With a Pentecostal background, it isn’t that unusual to talk that way, anyhow.
However, it seems the pastor (Kalnin?) is almost as interesting as Rev Wright. Almost. This gives me an idea, though, since they both think they speak for Him. Instead of an election, put Rev Wright and Pastor Kalnin in a boxing ring. First one to KO the other wins.
Winter Wallaby Sep 4th 2008 at 02:18 am 87
If the number of comments is a good gauge of how much people are enjoying the thread, this discussion is about ten times more enjoyable than the typical comic, and you should post more political comments. Er, wait. I just realized by this standard you should also have more posts complaining about FBOFW. And FW. Hm, that doesn’t sound quite right.
Powers Sep 4th 2008 at 07:03 am 88
March Hare: Obama’s “two years” of experience were on the national level; at the state level, where Sarah Palin is now, he worked for several years. If you’re going to compare years, you should combine Obama’s state and national legislative years.
Lola Sep 4th 2008 at 07:19 am 89
Apples and oranges. Many of the comic get explained and then there’s not much more to talk about. Politics or religion and especialy politics AND religion will defy explanation and so folks will feel compelled to keep debating them.
So here’s my view. If you are going to literally parade your children onto the national stage for their political value, you’ve just as well as declared open season on them. It was all sooooo staged. Preggers one and main squeeze holding hands….see they’re in love so it’s OK. Pass the special needs baby back and forth with lots of close ups on him…..see, husband’s a new age sensitive kind of guy he’ll take care of them all. I’m not saying these kids should be hidden, but to shove them out front like a shield won’t end pretty.
Bulthistle Sep 4th 2008 at 02:05 pm 90
McCain has been campaigning for months - how much have we seen of his kids - nada - because he’s not running as a dad, but Sarah Palin is absolutely running as Hockey Mom. Connie Schultz of the Plain Dealer (and wife of a congressman) wrote a great column about that. http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf?/base/living-0/122043076689550.xml&coll=2
She threw her pregnant teenager into the spotlight to deflect blog rumors about herself. Does that show good judgment?
JimJ Sep 4th 2008 at 09:21 pm 91
The news release didn’t really have anything to do with the blogs. The real reason is that they knew it would come out anyhow, and releasing it themselves was the best spin they could get.
Ironically, I wouldn’t have known of the blog rumors otherwise; now I *hope* they’re true, because if her story is the truth, then she was pretty reckless with Trig’s pregnancy. I don’t want a reckless person in line for the Presidency.
Patrick Sep 4th 2008 at 09:29 pm 92
I’m sorry, JimJ, but could you clarify your comment for me? How was Palin “reckless” with her daughter’s pregnancy? And are you saying that you “hope” it’s true that she lied about her yougest son - that he is actually Palin’s grandson but they attempted to pull off some ridiculous, massive cover up? Why would you hope that?
e 2 the x Sep 5th 2008 at 10:36 am 93
as a footnote:
would Clinton have been treated the same way if her daughter had been pregnant before marriage? why is no one saying the Republicans are hypocrites?
JimJ Sep 5th 2008 at 03:10 pm 94
@Patrick — Not about her daughter. If Trig were her Grandson, then she would be dishonest, but fibbing to protect a minor child is perhaps excusable. I’m more concerned about the implications of her story being true.
She (says she) knew Trig had Down’s Syndrome, which makes delivery a higher risk than usual. It was already a high risk because of her age.
Given those risk factors, she should not have been traveling past 7 months, and the delivery should have been done by specialists in qualified facilities.
According to her own story, she was in Texas to speak at a convention on the morning when her water broke. She stayed to speak in the afternoon. Then, instead of going to the qualified hospital there, she boarded a 20-hour flight to Alaska. (Airplanes are not good places for any delivery, but certainly not a high-risk one.) Once there, she drove (a few hours) past two qualified hospitals to get to her home clinic — which should not have been delivering high-risk kids.
Maybe obstetricians have a different definition of “high-risk”. I even understand wanting to be in a familiar clinic with a doctor she knows, despite the higher risks. But if it was that important to her to be home, she had no business being that far away so close to the due date.
Patrick Sep 5th 2008 at 05:59 pm 95
JimJ, thank you for clarifying that. The source of my confusion here is taht I am an old man who gave his children first names that are, well, actual NAMES. I don’t know a Trig from a Bristol from a Piper from a Willow from a Track so I didn’t realize that “Trig’s pregnancy” meant her own pregnancy with her son Trig. Sorry.
I agree that her behavior on the day of her youngest son’s birth was risky.
Gotta run now, I have to go pick up my kids Shoe, Pinenut, Sheboygan and little Algebra II.
JimJ Sep 5th 2008 at 09:13 pm 96
(slight correction — turns out the 20+ hours included the time before she boarded the plane; the actual flights were only about half that.)
Molly Sep 6th 2008 at 04:47 am 97
Patrick said “Gotta run now, I have to go pick up my kids Shoe, Pinenut, Sheboygan and little Algebra II”
Thanks, Patrick. I finally got a LOL from this “comics” thread.
eeyore19 Sep 6th 2008 at 10:21 am 98
Patrick: one of my sister’s friends named her daughter Matrix (back in the ’80s, long before the Matrix movies). I have no idea why, or if she even knew what a “matrix” was.
Lola Sep 6th 2008 at 10:33 am 99
Eeyore - she was hoping that when her daughter grew up she would get engaged to a Dominick so she could put Dom ‘n Matrix on the reception napkins. Though she would have settled for a Thomas if that’s the way it had to be.
Lola Sep 6th 2008 at 10:50 am 100
Not that I’m trying to defend her actions, but, though it isn’t usually the case, water breaking does not necessarily mean that labor has started. The water can break hours, days, weeks and sometimes even months before labor starts. So there’s the benefit of the doubt. Still, I think it was reckless and I have to wonder if on some level she wasn’t counting on there being complications resulting in a stillbirth in which case she gets all the political right to life benefit of having championed his pregnancy without having to actually raise him plus all the sympathy for having lost him. Oh, I hope that isn’t right.
Is Trig his whole name, is it short for Trigger or something else or a nickname?
CIDU BIll Sep 6th 2008 at 11:22 am 101
Little-known fact, “Trig” is actually the Inuit word for “grandson.”
Lola Sep 6th 2008 at 12:22 pm 102
Reeeeealy? Hahaha, no wonder the rumors started that he was her grandson. So do we think she knew this or that she’d simply heard locals using the term and assumed it was an endearment?
Carl Sep 6th 2008 at 12:39 pm 103
Do you know what “Matrix” means?
It means “womb” or “uterus”. Really. Eytmologically “that which makes you a mother.”
AMC Sep 6th 2008 at 01:12 pm 104
Soooo. Matrix are for kids!
Molly Sep 6th 2008 at 04:27 pm 105
There goes Bill, not learning from the previous excursion into irony.
“Oh, irony! No, we don’t get that here. We used to, but I was the only practitioner and I kept getting funny looks, so…”
- Steve Martin in Roxanne
Cidu Bill Sep 6th 2008 at 04:39 pm 106
And I never will, Molly.
Okay, I was just kidding about the Inuit thing. But come on, these rumors have to start up SOMEWHERE, so why not here?
JimJ Sep 6th 2008 at 07:43 pm 107
Lola — The “having it both ways” struck a chord, and I just realized the one piece of queasiness I hadn’t identified.
Why did they even know about the Down’s syndrome? The tests themselves have enough chance of causing a miscarriage that they aren’t recommended for women her age — not even those who consider an abortion. The other reasons to have the test are to prepare for a high-risk delivery or to prepare yourself — maybe move closer to supportive family, or turn down a higher-stress assignment at work. Since she seems to be doing the opposite anyhow, why did she take the risk of that test?
JimJ Sep 6th 2008 at 07:46 pm 108
(slight correction again — I was remembering http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/the-economics-of-the-amniocentesis/ which suggested that those over 40 should not get an amniocentesis — but it sounds like older advice was still that they should. The question of “why?” still holds.)
JimJ Sep 6th 2008 at 08:06 pm 109
Tryggva seems to be a Scandinavian name (Olaf Tryggvasson) and I suppose Trig could be short for that…
Molly Sep 7th 2008 at 04:19 pm 110
What makes everyone so sure she had amniocentesis and knew the child was Down’s Syndrome? I haven’t read that anywhere. Have I missed something?
Cidu Bill Sep 7th 2008 at 07:55 pm 111
I was thinking this myself, Molly: Everybody “knows” that she knew the baby had Down Syndrome, but I really don’t remember ever reading that this was factually so.
solarrhino Sep 8th 2008 at 01:58 am 112
Your questions answered here.
Michèle Sep 8th 2008 at 04:26 pm 113
> I fear a return to the “good old days”, where most first babies were born within seven months of the wedding. (Such was the case in 19th century Britain. Even Winston Churchill was born seven months after his parents’ wedding, and at nine pounds he wasn’t premature.)
What’s that old saying? “Everybody knows that an eager young bride can accomplish in 7 months what it takes cows & countesses 9 months to do.”
> I find the hypocrisy appalling–not so much the daughter as the crowing about how proud they are to have made the CHOICE to have their Downs Syndrome baby–no word about how she would like to take that choice away from everyone else.
I’ve noticed that cognitive dissonance, too, but I think it’s due to the fact that some (many? most?) Pro-Lifers seem to think that (most? all?) Pro-Choicers are really Pro-Abortion, as in “every pregnancy must end in abortion”. They seem surprised when someone who claims to be Pro-Choice decides to go ahead and have the baby instead of having an abortion.