In the comboxes, Daniel continues to flack a line we're hearing a lot from the left re: Palin:
Did Gore put his family and family moral decisions front and center in his appeal to voters?
The idea here is that Palin's family is fair game because she's using them to appeal to voters. I would invite readers who believe this to find any instances of Sarah Palin holding her own children up as campaign fodder. It is certainly true that many of us who like Palin and are excited by her new role in the campaign consider her choosing to have a Down syndrome baby instead of aborting him to be indicative of the depth of her commitment to the sanctity of life. But that's not something Palin has said; it's what Palin supporters have said about her. And it really is telling: many pro-lifers believe, not without cause, that Republican politicians tend to give lip service to the pro-life cause. Here, in the case of Sarah Palin, is direct evidence that she cares deeply about the sanctity of life. Arguably the decision to support her pregnant teenage daughter is more evidence of that. There is political meaning in those decisions. Hold we who praise her character for those decisions responsible for our judgments, but don't claim that Sarah Palin is choosing to use her family as an "appeal to voters." I just don't see it.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
I cannot begin to describe the disgust I feel towards the creepazoid conspiracy nuts who have turned a family matter into a political football, right down to examining the belly of a teenager via pictures posted on the internet. Bristol's life will forever be defined by her mother's ambition.
So all this patently HORRIBLE behavior by a whole host of Democrats and lefties is the fault of the mother of Bristol Palin?
This is most absurd and idiotic logic I have ever witnessed here.
Even worse than Daniel's endless confusion.
This is most absurd and idiotic logic I have ever witnessed here
Because logically...mothers and fathers are too stupid to see the incoming, directly targeting thier child?
You don't think "her life will be forever defined by" is a little over the top? Twenty and thirty years later, how much do you think Tricia Cox's, Julie Eisenhower's, Amy Carter's, and the Ford kids' family and friends -- the people who matter to them in real life -- define them by "the Checkers speech," "lust in the heart" and "walking and chewing gum," which are the approximate long-term equivalents of Democratic operatives fussing for a few weeks over Bristol Palin's pregnancy?
In the interest of semantic clarity, one should pay attention to the small-c and small-l in the labels being used. ;-)
But it is important to remember that it is conservatism that ultimately champions the individual's freedom to strive and to excel.
Max, that is -- unwittingly, I feel sure -- an egregious example of claiming the high ground in the face of contradictory evidence.
By your logic, the conservative Tories should have supported the colonial revolution.
By your logic, every conservative in the antebellum South should have supported abolition of slavery.
By your logic, every conservative in 20th century southern states should have supported civil rights regardless of race.
Need I go on?
I respectfully and sincerely submit that neither liberals nor conservatives are validly defined by the high profile rhetoric from either side. For one side to push that invalid definition on the other side is, if you'll forgive me, a passle of lies dressed up as a rallying cry. Once the poison sets in, and it will if we let it, what chance do you think there will be that they can sit down at the same table and get anything -- anything at all -- accomplished?
To emphasize the point: liberals and conservatives both get the same criticism, as far as I'm concerned.
Self-reflection, as Mr. Beckwith ironically accuses me of lacking in the "Palin is a Christian" thread, is the only cure. The ego must let the criticisms in, strip them of their emotional content and pay attention to the truths they carry.
And the left wing payed to fly Levi down to the convention? And the bloggers bought him a suit and put him on the tarmac? And the elite liberal media took the pictures of them all greeting McCain.
Do you really thing young Bristol and Levi asked to become poster children for the antichoice movement?
Wouldn’t a simple, my daughter is flying back to Alaska to be with her future husband have been a more sincere expression of “the children are out of bounds?”
And isn’t it funny that liberal elite mediaman Bill O’Reilly said that when Jaime Lynn Spears became pregnant and announced she would wed the father O’Reilly said it “reflected on the poor morals and obviously loose values of the household” and then ran continual followups on the situation.
That’s why people can’t take your positions seriously, you are hypocrites.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.