Palin and childrearing

Christians ought to be held to a higher standard, Rod, especially if they go into politics and preach morality. Besides, were any of the "solid families" you talk about involved in public life?

Your defense is not about raising the country to a higher moral standard, it's about lowering Christian standards to match that of the rest of the country.

When Palin's parenting decisions involved her disabled child, you saw it as a mark of her ability to lead and her moral character. It was the quality almost anyone on the right could talk about. You were downright giddy when you found out she was homeschooling her kids, because it represented something about her character. She was "one of us"

Why is it when her child is a pregnant 17 year old, we are no longer allowed to talk about what it says about her ability to lead and her moral character? Why are we no longer allowed to talk about what that means?

I don't think she should leave public life--although I think her days on the GOP ticket are numbered--and it is an unfair double standard that dads are not held as responsible for their family problems as moms are. But why aren't we allowed to talk about it without being shamed from people who spent days judging Michelle Obama because of her undergraduate thesis and spent months talking about Barack's relationship with his minister?

I dunno, Daniel, apples and oranges and all that.

"I dunno, Daniel, apples and oranges and all that."

You are right. A 20 year old undergraduate thesis is an indication of ones character, a pregnant 17 year old isn't. Apples and oranges.

Really, her family life does not matter. Leave her kids alone. Emphasize the truth-- she is out of her league and clearly unqualified. That should suffice.

Palin is now a public figure and I'm dismayed that her successes in life will give young girls a false impression about teen pregnancy.

Not every family has the Palin's wealth and influence to fix a teenage pregnancy and as a society we should be ashamed for promoting it in such a public manner.

"The people who asked those questions had a vested interest in Edwards' dropping out."

Not all of them...I know Democrats who asked the same thing, and these were
people who weren't die hard supporters of other Democratic candidates. A
friend of mine who is both a physician and a cancer survivor, for instance, and who knew what Elizabeth Edwards' cancer might entail.

And as a person who has a sister with severe autism, it's the special needs
aspect of Palin's youngest child that concerns me, rather than the
pregnancy of her teen aged daughter.

We all bring our own experience to the table.

if teen pregnancy was good enough for God (Mary by all accounts hadn't even celebrated her Quinceañera) we ought all be asking ourselves why with all our material prowess (are the techie perks of 24/7 availability for employers only? What about ourselves and our nearest and dearest, shouldn't they come first?) we postpone the most natural thing in the world until college years (and college loans) are done with? Those who dope themselves with contraceptives through their most productive and creative years will rue the day - fecundity has a shelf life.

I don't think it's a big deal myself. Humans hit their reproductive peak in their late teens. Unfortunately post-war culture and economics has pushed the marriage age higher and higher, so we try to force young adults to live unnaturally. (Which is also why I think so-called abstinence education is pretty silly). It's much easier trying to maintain Christian sexual morality when 17 year olds can marry without breaking some taboo.

Of course, I also grew up in rural West Texas where teenage pregnancies and teenage marriages were pretty common, so it could just be me.

"Some are asking whether or not it's responsible for Sarah Palin to get involved in public life when she has problems at home to deal with. Funny, they don't seem to ask this question of male politicians or business executives."

Yeap, it's a double standard because men and woman are 100% identical and should be treated as such. Oh wait, I thought this was Gloria Steinham's website

Ok, Rod, just try to imagine what your reaction and that of say, writers at the National Review, would be if Obama's teenage daughter were pregnant.

RinNYC: "Senator Obama would see this situation as punishment. The Palins see this as a gift."

C'mon! That's not fair. Now you're stooping to Sullivan's level.

Steve, "Just out of curiosity, anyone know if any modern era presidential or VP candidate had a pregnant teen who was not married?"

How about a VP candidate whose daughter was a lesbian?

Rod, ...why is it that some liberals saying that Sarah Palin needs to leave public life and take care of business at home? Would they apply the same standard to male politicians whose children get into trouble? If not, why not?

Because everyone really is sexist, even libs. Heck, otherwise we would have men and women compete against each other in the Olymics, we would all use the same bathrooms, demand women be drafted to fight in combat, let men wear dresses, and have the same deep offense against lesbian PDA that we tend to have against male homosexual PDA. Bluntly, the whole male-woman equal rights thing is a joke, and everyone knows it...we all just pretend otherwise. But it is a blast to watch liberals squirm around on race and sex issues, as your post points out.

Personally, I find how her shameless feminism has really hurt her family is about the only thing I have against Palin - she hasn't invested the time into her family she should have, foolishly believing all the liberal claims a woman really can have it all. Not too bright and selfish to boot. We can certainly see the results of what a Palin lifestyle does to a family...can you imagine putting your family through that with the primary caregiver and a newborn infant? Her priorities are clear.

Also, even though I support Palin's politics, I think the way she treats her family is a legit political issue. She can't have it both ways, showing off her family at the convention and then saying, hey, leave us alone! Regardless, it's going to be a big factor in the election. But I doubt it will hurt her - Americans don't care much about family anymore and really don't care how kids are treated as long as it fits their agenda. But I do think it's still going to be a blast watching liberals twist and turn over the sexist issue, and pretend they ain't sexist. Definately worth the price of admission!

LOL @ egalitarian! (Wedding planning, indeed.) Thank you for that. We need a little levity around here.

"Funny, they don't seem to ask this question of male politicians or business executives."

Why is it funny? Women are the nurturing ones and they need to be home with the children. Any authentic social conservative knows this. Ms Palin is a careerist woman sold as 'traditional'.

It's "funny" because the people who don't ask this question of male politicians or business executives are precisely the same types who contend that we're all identical and equal and every way.

While a lot of this has been odious, I'd like to point out that when Elizabeth Edwards announced that her cancer had returned, an awful lot of people asked whether John was capable of campaigning or governing with a sick wife, and whether it was even right for him to be running.

A wife dying of cancer is not the same thing as a pregnant teenager, or a Down syndrome child, it seems to me. Neither pregnancy nor Down syndrome is a terminal illness -- and pregnancy, believe it or not, is not an illness at all. In either event, I don't think it was remotely central to the case for (or against) Edwards as president.

Steve says: "Just out of curiosity, anyone know if any modern era presidential or VP candidate had a pregnant teen who was not married?"

Steve, I can't think of anyone at the moment, I'll get back to you -- but for some reason a presidential candidate who left a poor woman to drown in a car in Chappaquiddick Bay just came to mind.

I was impressed by Obama's statement on this - especially since he and I share out-of-wedlock birth origins. It was an impressive display of class, and he gets points from me for it. Of course, in this fever swap we're in, any show of decency immediately gets elevated to class. And Obama HAD to do it because this thing is rapidly metastasizing into a disaster for him.

He should also do a better job of clamping down on his own staff, but I feel a little sorry for him when it comes to controlling the Nutroots. Once unleashed, the swarthy Mr. Hyde hate they're capable of is difficult to contain.

It really looks like the Palins belong on the Jerry Springer show more than they do in the Naval Observatory.

I have never read Andrew Sullivan before today, but having read some of his feculence, I will say I agree with those who advise Rod to unlink the calumniator's blog.

My impression is that if Palin's daughter had admitted to lesbianism, not only would she not be pregnant, but Palin would get Sullivan's ringing endorsement.

But no matter, we don't look to his ilk as the paragon of family life.

When Palin's parenting decisions involved her disabled child, you saw it as a mark of her ability to lead and her moral character. It was the quality almost anyone on the right could talk about. You were downright giddy when you found out she was homeschooling her kids, because it represented something about her character. She was "one of us"

Why is it when her child is a pregnant 17 year old, we are no longer allowed to talk about what it says about her ability to lead and her moral character? Why are we no longer allowed to talk about what that means?

Actually, I wish you would keep talking about how Sarah Palin's teenage daughter's pregnancy makes her a bad mother. I wish you would say that a terrible decision made by a 17-year-old girl is conclusive proof that her mother has a rotten character. I think it's excellent for liberals to associate themselves with the idea that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter's getting pregnant obviates the virtue of her choosing to welcome into the world her handicapped child instead of exterminating it in the womb. Please keep discussing this.

As for this being the creation of "the left", please explain how your standard can embrace coverage of Jeremiah Wright and Rielle Hunter, but demand repression of coverage of Bristol Palin.

Here we go. Obama called Wright his mentor, named his book after him, considered him his spiritual father. It's perfectly normal to ask to what extent his ideas influenced Obama's thinking (and, for the record, it would be fair to ask how Palin's pastor's teachings influenced her, if at all, though as far as we know she never had an intellectual relationship to a pastor as close and formative as Obama's with Wright). Re: Rielle Hunter, it became an issue after Edwards got caught meeting with her in the hotel, and it became obvious that he lied about it, after saying on "60 Minutes" that a man's personal life is evidence of his character. It was a legitimate story.

You must not have noticed that the McCain-Palin campaign released this story themselves. I don't have any problem with the coverage. I only objected to the idea that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is evidence that the Palin family is no damn good. They might well be no damn good, but this is not proof of it, and it's remarkable to see the left taking this line of attack.

RinNYC: "Senator Obama would see this situation as punishment. The Palins see this as a gift."

C'mon! That's not fair. Now you're stooping to Sullivan's level.

Actually, RinNYC is only quoting Obama himself: "If [teenage girls] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Video here.

Ok, Rod, just try to imagine what your reaction and that of say, writers at the National Review, would be if Obama's teenage daughter were pregnant.

I don't know about the writers at NR, but my reaction would not be, "What crappy parents Barack and Michelle Obama are." We just don't know that. I've known folks who were, to all respects, crappy parents, and their daughter got pregnant out of wedlock. I've known folks who were to all appearances very good parents -- including one Christian family in which the mom did not work outside the home -- in which the daughter got pregnant outside of wedlock. Unless I knew more about the circumstances of the situation, I'd withhold judgment. Anyway, unless the girl chose to abort her child, she's not going to get un-pregnant, and the only thing left to do is to figure out how to make the best of a very difficult situation. Which it sounds like the Palins are doing.

Rod Dreher wrote, "Actually, RinNYC is only quoting Obama himself: "If [teenage girls] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

OH....MY....GOSH!! I didn't realize that BO had made such a statement. Talk about a slip of the lip!

RinNYC, please accept my apologies.

Punished with a baby, indeed!

Rod: "I wish you would say that a terrible decision made by a 17-year-old girl is conclusive proof that her mother has a rotten character. I think it's excellent for liberals to associate themselves with the idea that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter's getting pregnant obviates the virtue of her choosing to welcome into the world her handicapped child instead of exterminating it in the womb."

Great, then let's keep talking about it. I don't think Bristol's pregnancy is conclusive proof of her mother's rotten character. That's a straw man. I do think that it is evidence that Bristol suffered because her mother chose a stressful career, and for whatever reason couldn't get her husband to pick up the slack.

Now, why don't you present your evidence that Bristol is choosing to have this baby of her own free will, and not being manipulated by a woman who certainly seems to have a vested professional interest in maintaining her pro-life credentials.

Sarah Palin is definitely not "one of us" in that she's nothing like me, or anyone I know, in that she is choosing one of the most stressful careers possible while caring for a newborn Down's Syndrome baby and an unwed pregnant teenager. I can't imagine making that choice, and have doubts about the judgment of someone who can. I also can't imagine putting out such a weird statement about my child:

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family."

These sound more like the words of an angry mother who has demanded her daughter obey and make the difficult choice she herself would have made, then the words of a loving mother who is happily embracing her daughter's unpressured choice to give birth and marry.

Bless,
Doug

PS: I like your phrase "liberals and skeptics"; at least I don't have to always type "I'm not a liberal" when critiquing Republicans.

Doug Cramer at 6:07 PM: "For all we know she [Bristol Palin] wants an abortion and her parents are forcing her to have the baby against her wishes."

Man, that is the lowest. You are one sick puppy. The local news reports out of Alaska today indicate that Bristol's pregnancy is no secret at all in the small town (Wasilla) where the young girl and her boyfriend (Levi) are from. The "salt of the earth" folks in Wasilla are showing greater maturity than all the stale TV "talking heads" and left-wing bloggers combined down in the lower 48.

"For all we know ..." Sure, Doug, "for all we know."

If you reply, please spare us your usual "Bless, Doug" closing ... in light of your last post. Sorry to say this (I know this sounds harsh), but it's seems pretty phony now. Better, yet, don't reply and just find a mirror and take a good look at yourself.

"For all we know..." Give me a break!!

Oh, and Doug, I just saw your comment from 6:30.

Last year Alaska's parental consent law regarding abortions obtained by minors was declared unconstitutional. It had never been enforced, and only sought to restrict abortions by girls under the age of 17 anyway as far as I can see; although there was a "judicial bypass" process in the law it didn't pass Alaska's SC review. The SC did say that a similar "parental notification" law would probably work just fine for the state.

So if Bristol Palin is having this baby, it's not because somebody locked her up and kept her from getting an abortion--with no parental notification or consent law in Alaska she didn't even have to tell her parents she was pregnant, if she happened to disagree with them about unborn life and wanted an abortion. Apparently, she doesn't, and is making this pro-life choice all on her own.

As the father of teenage daughters, if one of them ended up pregnant and unmarried, you can bet I'd be asking some hard questions and praying some serious prayers to determine what happened in my family. I would consider it a parenting failure if one of them ended up pregnant after giving them my moral guidance.

Would I expect my neighbors force me to wear a scarlet letter? Of course not. But would it be fair for them to question what went wrong? Absolutely. We are more than blame "ghetto culture" when an inner-city girl ends up pregnant. The term "slut" is tossed around this blog with surprising frequency when it comes to judging sexualized behavior of young women, even when they aren't pregnant. When challenged, we are told that there needs to be some stigmatizing of such behavior.

So what changed? Why can't we ask some questions about the Palin family, since they have been held up as exemplars of social conservative values?

"Your hatred of the good, the true, and the beautiful is palpable"

In other words, you see her as the perfect, good, true and beautiful mother? This is the candidate I am talking about, not the 17 y/o. FTR, I see this as a family failure since dad is also responsible. Where were the siblings? At any rate, we have a responsibility to care for and watch out for our children. Some of us did not get to be snowmobiling champions because on our w/e's off we spent the time with our kids. We made sure we knew where our kids were at night. We turned down higher paying jobs away from grandparents, so our kids could know there extended family. In spite of all this, sometimes these kids get pregnant also, but not after we paraded ourselves as being the model family, the paragon of moral values.

So now we have the official crunchy con position as glorifying teen pregnancy. No responsibility for the parents. Kids get pregnant, that's ok because we will make sure the baby is born and well taken care of (and with their money and position of power it will). No shame . No responsibility. Just empty, hedonistic sex that is ok because we can afford it. Not the kind of parenting to which I aspire.

Again, if you want to propose Palin as a good candidate because of her parenting skills, it should all be on the table. Personally, I would prefer to concentrate on her socialist economic policies.

Steve

Steve,

You said you'd prefer to concentrate on Palin's socialist economic policies. Could you be more specific?

NEWSFLASH, from Rod Dreher:

"From the Department of Not Surprised One Dadgum Bit comes news that Sarah Palin's 16-year-old daughter done got knocked up. She met the dude at -- get this -- church. Ah, Alaska, the great state. Ah, my people. Seriously, God bless Bristol Palin for keeping her baby instead of killing it at the abortion clinic -- and I wish to be associated with Barack Obama's compassionate remarks to that effect -- but you know, honestly...

UPDATE: John and Bristol's momma's parenting book is now on hold. In other news, Donald Trump's pensees on humility will be delayed by their publisher until next year.
"

Oops, sorry that was Rod 8 months ago...

http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2007/12/stereotypes-in-our-time.html

Erin,

Thanks! That's good to know. I also just learned that the age of consent in Alaska is 16, so the father of Bristol's baby isn't guilty of statutory rape there, as he would be in other states.

All the best,
Doug

Steve: "I see this as a family failure since dad is also responsible. Where were the siblings? At any rate, we have a responsibility to care for and watch out for our children. Some of us did not get to be snowmobiling champions because on our w/e's off we spent the time with our kids. We made sure we knew where our kids were at night. We turned down higher paying jobs away from grandparents, so our kids could know there extended family. In spite of all this, sometimes these kids get pregnant also, but not after we paraded ourselves as being the model family, the paragon of moral values."

Well, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make, but apparently a few folks here believe to even make the attempt is uncharitable. Thank you for articulating it so well.

I have a 16 year old son, and even though I don't hold myself up as a model parent I would not allow him to be unchaperoned with a woman in such a setting that it would be possible for him to get her pregnant. And it usually takes several attempts to get to this point - a few hot, unsupervised dates, followed by the first intercourse, so unless this was a completely random event it can't be written off to "oh, we only left our 16 year old daughter and her boyfriend alone for the weekend that one time..."

Doug

From Matt Yglesias:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/09/making_the_choice.php

Making the Choice

John McCain’s presidential campaign wants to assure us that Bristol Palin isn’t being coerced into keeping her baby:

Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said.

And good for her, but as Ann Friedman says:

John McCain and Sarah Palin don’t believe women have a right to choose. It’s absolutely absurd for the campaign to emphasize the fact that Bristol “made this decision,” and then push for policies that take away that choice.

Why shouldn’t ever woman continue to enjoy the choices that Bristol Palin has? And more to the point, if women shouldn’t be allowed to choose then why does McCain’s campaign think it’s important to emphasize her agency in this process? By his own lights, McCain should be totally indifferent to whether Bristol chose this course of action or was pressured into it by her mother. McCain’s view is that he should make the choice for her and for every other pregnant woman in the country.

steve,

It sounds to me like she is taking tax money and buying off voters

That is not "tax money" taken from the oil companies.

The oil in Alaska belongs to the citizens, not to the oil companies who drill there. Palin merely releases the extra wealth generated by oil back into the hands of the people, to whom the oil actually belongs - to each man, woman, and child. If she were buying off voters, she would only give it to voters.

Of course, liberals find this offensive - they want it control the wealth so as to buy off their unions and spend via the state as this gives them power.

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
so·cial·ism Audio Help [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

From dictionary.com.

"The oil in Alaska belongs to the citizens"

This sounds like it fits the definition of socialism. Please explain how it is different.

Steve

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
so·cial·ism Audio Help [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

From dictionary.com.

"The oil in Alaska belongs to the citizens"

This sounds like it fits the definition of socialism. Please explain how it is different.

Steve

"social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

Another definition from the Encyclopedia Brittanica in case dictioary.com is a secret left wing conspiracy I dont know about.

Steve

Hey, anonymous person, any chance that McCain et al. are talking about Bristol's choice to keep and raise her baby and marry the baby's father instead of placing the baby for adoption?

I think women have lots of choices when it comes to an unplanned pregnancy. I just don't condone the choice to have the child killed.

I'm going to weigh in against Palin. I tuned out of the news (except for the weather, since I live in Houston), and missed all the fun. When I heard of the pick on Friday, I figured she'd have the same problmes a Jindal candicacy would: inexperience. I figured the race would do her more harm than McCain.

Having read up on it, I gotta say that I would question a father who entered a political race with all these things going on. In point of fact, there are plenty of family dramas about guys who spend too much time on their careers to their family's detriment. I think it is fair to ask, what kind of person would do this to her family. Maybe Mr. Palin is the perfect Mr. Mom. I don't know. I am willing to bet that at the end of it all, Gov. Palin will probably be wishing she'd declined Mr. Straight Talk's offer.

Erin: Oops, you're so right and I'm so sorry. I forgot about your guest host stint!

Doug

I am a very liberal, married working mother of a 2.5 year old and a 6 week old. I think Gov. Palin made the absolute wrong choice in accepting McCain's invitation to run as his VP. No man or woman with a 4 month old baby is in a position to do something as consuming of time and energy as running for VP. The child will most certainly suffer. Doesn't matter if the baby has special need or not. Babies that young need their mothers and fathers at home, caring for them full-time.

Rod linked to a story about the birth of baby Trig, which said that Gov Palin took 3 days off when he was born. That is outrageous. She should have taken significantly more time off to be with her newborn, make sure she got breastfeeding established, and rest, recover, and bond with her baby. Her husband should also have taken time off (and maybe he did, I don't know), to care for his wife and new son.

In addition to hurting her baby, Gov Palin does working women no favors by zipping back to work as she did. Many (perhaps most) employers are profoundly anti-family as it is, giving women limited parental leave and men usually none at all. Gov Palin's three days off suggests that's all women need to be ready to go back. The fact is, no man or woman should be back at work that fast after the birth (or adoption, really) of a baby.

As I said before, I am a die-hard liberal. My views on caring for kids may be traditionalist (although I don't think most traditionalists would agree with me that men should be focused on their newborns and wives), but are shared by the liberals I know.

On Gov Palin's daughter's pregnancy -- I don't know. It's true that teens rebel, even (maybe especially?) when they grow up in conservative households. But it's hard not to think that the parents were not effective in communicating their message when something like this happens. Were both parents fully engaged as parents? Were they paying attention to how their daughter was spending her time?

Both parents cannot have high-stress time consuming jobs and have effective parenting happen. I don't know what Gov Palin's husband does, but in my view, since his wife is a governor, the lion's share of childrearing falls to him. Did he fail as a father in this case? There's no way to know.

But does the Spears sister's pregnancy reflect badly on her parents? Many people think so. I've thought so, but maybe that's not fair.

Having said all this, I agree with those who say that none of this has anything to do with whether McCain/Palin should be elected. It's their policies and not their personal lives that are the problem, in my view. And I do agree with Obama that the Palin daighter's pregnancy is a personal matter.

cb-Thanks again. My initial info was that she had just chaired the Ethics part of the commission. This looks like a broader role. The article claims Alaska gets 85% of its revenue from oil taxes.

Boring them? That's ok. They just want to discuss biography. Sexier, but not enough to make rational voting decisions IMHO.

Steve

I mean both the ability and genuine WILLINGNESS of a working father, in this culture...

mdavid The oil in Alaska belongs to the citizens"

Steve, This sounds like it fits the definition of socialism. Please explain how it is different.

I don't care what you call it. Want to call it socialism, feel free. It doesn't bother me one bit, to be calledc a "socialist". But socialism the way it is viewed by most is where people (libs) take other peoples money and labor and distribute it, and this is not what we are talking about here.

Whatever you wish to call it...it's a plain and simple FACT that all resources on Alaskan land: the fish, game, and oil, all belong to the people (read our Constitution). Nobody worked for the fish/game/oil/gas...it is raw wealth that exists independent of human labor, as oil produces far more wealth than it costs to extract. Thus, liberals could use it to fund government and pay their pals, or we can just cut checks to real people. We decided to cut checks. You folk in the Lower-48 have choosen to do it different - to be corrupt with your oil wealth, spend it on government and political favors, to waste it (check out the roads in LA). So y'all get broke, while we have saved well over $20 BILLION, and cut checks with the interest of this money to ensure nobody (that is, liberals) spends it the principle...while you guys have spent every dime of your oil money.

It's great, how all you libs hate this so much. I love it! Well, call it what you want, we don't care...we think your government-liberal-spendthrift way of doing business sucks. We think the citizens can spend the money better than self-important politicians.

Mr. Dreher writes:

"Some are asking whether or not it's responsible for Sarah Palin to get involved in public life when she has problems at home to deal with. Funny, they don't seem to ask this question of male politicians or business executives."

That's odd; I seem to recall quite a few people demanding the impeachment (and properly so) of President Clinton as a result of his "problems at home" concerning a certain Miss Monica Lewinsky. And I am also aware of several CEOs of megacorporations (GE, for example) that have had to resign over extramarital affairs.

"Secondly, others (on the left exclusively, at least from what I've seen) are saying, "See, see, this just goes to show something is really wrong inside the Palin family. That matters to us." Sorry, not buying. It may signify that there's something really wrong inside the Palin family. But I've known pretty solid families who have had to deal with teen pregnancy because -- news flash! -- teenagers have minds of their own. I'm thinking of one particular conservative Christian family I know that's a loving, open, prayerful family. One of their daughters rebelled against her folks, and part of her rebellion included promiscuity. She got pregnant. Her family rallied around her. She ended up marrying the father, and they've gone on to have a loving marriage and a happy family."

Good for them. The fact that they have managed to deal with such a situation in a tolerable way is not necessarily a proof of their qualification for public offices which should be (and in fact used to be) considered public trusts. When a woman falls from grace and becomes the town whore, for whatever reason, the simple fact that she later converts to the church does not automatically qualify her to lead the congregation.

"It doesn't always work out that way, and none of us welcome unwed motherhood. Still, the idea that bad things don't happen to good people is childish. Nobody believes that. Moreover, if you teach your children that stealing is wrong, but your teenage son gets caught shoplifting, that doesn't automatically make you a hypocrite or a bad parent. My parents taught me not to drink and drive, but I did it as a teenager. I failed them and the standards they taught me. My failure was my own, not theirs. "

Incorrect. While your failure serves primarily as a reflection on your own character, it also reflects on their abilities as teachers and as exemplars of correct values and conduct. It also reflects on the reputation of your entire House and the members thereof, albeit to a lesser extent.

"Now, it certainly could be true that the Palins are a screwed-up family, and that Sarah needs to be attending to business. But we don't know that at all, and the willingness of Palin's political enemies to exploit this family crisis for their own ends is just appalling. What we know so far reveals nothing about the character of Sarah Palin, or the childrearing skills of her and her husband. Nothing. Barack Obama is right: people's families should be off limits."

Categorically untrue. Human beings are not isolated individuals, but are rather the products of an environment that includes interactions with and the influences of other Human beings. A person's family, including perhaps two or three generations back, is a vitally important indicator of the influences that helped to shape the growth and development of that person. Examining the character and conduct of such people is an essential, particularly when a person is being considered for a high public office that would allow him/her to wield power over the lives of many others. People's families, particularly parents, spouses and children, should be one of the first things we look at in such situations.

"And even if it does, is the left now saying that we have to take into consideration whether or not our political leaders are good mommies and daddies before we judge them fit for higher office? Because if so, very damn few men and women will be left to serve. Winston Churchill was a lousy father."

The Left may or may not say it, but this Rightist certainly says it. Indeed, for the office of President, or Congress or provincial governor, this Rightist d-mned well INSISTS on it. How a man or woman deals with his/her family reveals a great deal about his or her character, just as how he/she acts in business speaks to his or her character. We would insist on learning about a candidate's personal finances before deciding to elevate him to high office; to fail to examine his dealings with other Human beings (especially those for whom he or she has primary responsibility) with a similarly critical eye strikes me as being the act of an ideologue, a credulous Pollyanna or a cocksure fool. Take your pick.

The offices in question are offices of enormous---indeed, life-and-death---power; RIGOROUS evaluations of candidates for such would seem to be a bare-minimum requirement of the selection process. Better a Gideon's Band consisting of men of standards and attainments than a mob of the pleasingly incompetent or charmingly immoral.

"I ask again: why is it that some liberals saying that Sarah Palin needs to leave public life and take care of business at home? Would they apply the same standard to male politicians whose children get into trouble? If not, why not?"

I say again; this Rightist would very definitely apply the same standard to a male politician. In fact, a male politician should come under far more exacting scrutiny, since he is more likely to be acting in a capacity as Head of House and/or Line.

With regards to Sarah Palin; it may well be that her personal situation is complex, difficult and time-consuming enough to deal with so as to require her to step aside. I do not necessarily claim to know, although such information as I possess would appear to indicate that such is a possibility here. The first duty of any Head of House, man or woman, is to the well-being and honor of those who are part of that House; fulfilling that duty may well require putting off the satisfaction of mere personal ambition.

You can't have it all. And one's duties take precedence over one's ambitions, particularly if one wishes to be able to look at one's face in the mirror in the mornings.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

As a Menger-Austrian, my Palian"diamond-water paradox" was solved with the solitaire on Bristol's wedding finger - she is betrothed to her beloved. End of story - Western Latin theologians have argued against parental interference in matrimonial arrangements (and for the consent of the comsummating parties) in determining licit conjugal unions for millenia hence elopment as a valid category used by Bristol's own Mom to seal the union with Bristol's dad because they did not want to delay their nuptials for the sake of an expensive party!

Note (echoing my "fecundity has a shelf life" comment at the top of this thread) that delaying childrearing is a bad idea for the health of the child: a Swedish study has found that | Kids with older dads at higher bipolar risk | The findings published in the Archives of General Psychiatry bolster evidence that children of older fathers are at higher risk of psychological conditions such as bipolar disorder, autism and schizophrenia, the researchers said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL138021820080901

The CrunchyCon position it seems to me is to be obedient to nature, no?
Position descriptions for "Childrearing" always includes job-sharing: most incumbents juggle duties; some choose single-handed parenting assuming as many duties as humanly possible and knowingly neglecting some; while some have single-handed parenthood forced upon them and do the best they can with the help they get. That's why its good news for the GOP that we're having this debate - its being swirling in pro-family circles for some time now: what role should Government play in promoting healthy childreading within marriage (see URL for Ruth Project earlier in thread)?

ditto Richard:
"Whatever else is true...that's a message that needs to be sent... is in many ways even more important than Palin's candidacy."

as a matter of praxeology, in my mind, the marginal utility of electing McCain:Palin to instigate debate on the first principles I care about -- life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (N.B. its not Govt's job to "keep me in clover") outweighs the far more dubious utility of the Dems promises to solve our modern intractables (at home, where IT firms know more about how a patient's healthcare is managed than the patient themselves has access to, the Federal Reserve colludes with the Treasury to dilute the currency with promiscuous abandon where not just Main St. banks but now Wall Street investment firms get to play creditsharks in the subprime feeding frenzy, and abroad debating fairness in trade within a geopolitical hegemony of Sunni:Shi'a pan-Arabism competing with a Persian kleptotheocracy that reverberates down the Nile into the African continent and permeates to the core ancient cultures and ethnic enclaves all along the length of the Silk road, all the while having never solved the OLD intractables like the StatistMarxist concentration camps known as "China" and "Russia")

but may I ask Sigaliris who on the Dems ticket is having the "change the way Americans do business" conversation?

You know, Clare, that's a really good question! I don't think either party is really serious about finding out and implementing policies that foster healthy family formation. Both sides lavish praise on initiatives that support their own special interests. That said, overall I think the liberals have done more things that practically support families, like agitation for workplace regulations, family leave, sick leave, flextime, and other ways to allow people to care for their families and still keep their jobs. Conservatives tend to oppose such things on the grounds that they aren't "practical"--i.e. they're inconvenient for business owners. They persistently hark back to a model that pairs the absentee breadwinner dad, soul sold out to the corporation, with the desperate housewife raising the kids effectively on her own. Let's not forget that the atomization of the family started with industrial capitalism.

My father was a professor. We lived in a SMALL house, and he did most of his work in our midst--in the only armchair in the living room, writing his lectures with a notepad on his lap. We were unique among our friends in having a father who might turn up almost any time and was regularly home in the summer. We did not always enjoy that fact! However, we couldn't say that we didn't know our father. And although he had what I consider some strange and crazy beliefs about proper roles for men and women, that didn't stop him from doing what had to be done, practically. He knew how to cook, clean, wash and iron clothes, and he did not scorn to do so when necessary.

I'd have a lot more respect for conservative men if more of them actively and practically supported women and family, rather than ladling out helpings of blame without lifting a finger to help.

Well, gosh, Bonnie, if your sister seems overwhelmed to you, then I have to wonder why the rest of the family isn't pitching in to help out with the father who has dementia. Why is the only answer that comes to mind, "She should quit her job!" Maybe there are some alternatives--like, other family members could take turns, or they could pay for some live-in help for the dad, to take the load off her. I don't understand why you'd say the best husband in the world doesn't mitigate this type of burden. It seems to me that a good husband (and father) can make almost anything a lot easier!

I'm sorry, too, Bonnie--I wish I had not put my comment in a way that sounded as if I was accusing you of not doing enough. There is no reason for you to have to defend yourself to me or anyone else. I understand that these circumstances are difficult to handle for everyone, and all families manage their responsibilities as best they can. I should have stated my views in a more general way that wouldn't have made you feel put on the spot.

Honestly, I could not do what Sarah Palin has signed up for, and I don't think I could do what your sister does, either. I have my doubts, personally, about the wisdom of trying to balance so many things. It's just that I don't think Palin should be denied the opportunity to try it simply because I don't feel that I can. What I would really like to see is a society where help was available to those who feel overwhelmed by the amount of care that must be given to children and elderly relatives, while still meeting the demands of making a living. I'm afraid Obama's characterization of the Republican platform here as "You're on your own" is all too apt. Although, as Clare Krishan has pointed out, the Democrats aren't doing such a great job either.

Well, you could be right about that. Certainly I think the adulation of her as a sort of female Davy Crockett ("kilt her a b'ar when she was only three!") combined with beauty queen, pro-life heroine, foreign policy expert ("Alaska is the closest state to Russia!") and corruption fighter smacks of unrealistic fantasy.