I had thought the terrifying onslaught of Gustav and the efforts by the GOP to dodge the Katrina bullet–or turn it to McCain’s benefit–would be the story of the day, but the bombshell news that Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant is worth addressing given the stakes, and the nexus of religion and politics. A
nd, well, because it’s irresistible. (WaPocoverage here and NYTimes here. And a reader sends this photo from a McCain daughter’s blog, apparently of Bristol, holding baby Trig, from a People magazine shoot, as evidence that she was obviously pregnant. I’m not so sure.)
The Palin family issued a statement saying the daughter and daddy-to-be, Levi, would marry:
“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows that she has our unconditional love and support…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. We ask the media, respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”
Naturally this will introduce some German terms–mainly schadenfreude, I think–into the political lexicon. But it is also offering “Palinistas” and McCainiacs a chance to tout Palin as even more pro-life than ever. I haven’t surfed too far, but I was struck by the title of Rod Dreher’s “Crunchy Con” post: “Palin’s daughter gets pregnant, chooses life.” Rod writes:
Will this hurt her politically? I’m thinking not. Nor should it. Unplanned teen pregnancy is not unheard of in this country. Any family could face this crisis, even conservative Christian families. I’ve known some myself. The question is: how do you deal with it? Bristol Palin is not going to abort her unborn child. She’s going to keep the baby and marry the father. Good for her. It shouldn’t have happened, but it did happen, and now she’s going to do the right thing — the hard thing. Again: good. Mother and child — and father — need support.
My initial reaction is that Dreher is right–Palin supporters will rally around her, and will forcefully use any efforts to view this development as a chink in the Palin’s all-American, super-Christian reputation against the critics. And that might work. As Rod says, and as others have noted, this sort of thing happens to families like the Palins all the time. Sarah Palin and her daughter will be raising kids who will grow up together.
The news is so delicate for the Dems that Obama has weighed in saying:
“Back off these kinds of stories…I have said before and I will repeat again: People’s families are off limits. And people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin’s performance as a governor and or her potential perfromance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics.”
Yet so nervous is the Christian right that they’re actually giving Obama kudos–Rod calls him “classy,” even though Obama’s demonstrated class throughout the campaign, as opposed to the other camp. Then again, Obama is also in a political bind, as the GOP was saying his camp started the rumors that led to the revelation. He denied it, and wanted to put distance there, if possible.
I am not running for office, thank heaven, so at the risk of incurring such wrath (but what the heck), I think this story raises raises many other truly serious questions, beyond the obvious hole in the Palins’ holier-than-thou presentation. For one, the McCain camp apparently knew of Bristol’s pregnancy before the pick was made. So why wasn’t this made public right off the bat? Why all the hype about how wonderful the family is–when you know that may blow up in your face? According to campaign officials, the announcement was made after wild rumors began circulating on liberal blogs (not here!) that intended to counter rumors by liberal bloggers that Gov. Palin only claimed to have given birth last April, but the child (Trig, who has Down syndrome) was really Bristol’s. So how long were they going to keep this secret? For another, say, two months–until Nov. 5?
The Palins are of course also fortunate to have the means to support their pregant teenage daughter–what will she do as vice-president and potential president do ensure other young single moms have the same option? And how will she address her party’s ad nauseam rhetoric about the decline in morals and family values when the very things they blast in the rest of society are in fact happening at home?
But again, I doubt that will have traction. Indeed, it may not even be true in a few hours, in light of the news here that in the hours before her selection was announced a McCain campaign volunteer was surreptiously massaging Palin’s Wikipedia entry with more than 30 edits to make her look good. (Lecture for the first day of class this semester writes itself…)
More perilous for Palin (the candidate, not the daughter), I think, are some of the items that blogmeisters at dotCommonweal brought to light, namely, that she actually backed that infamous pork barrel “Bridge to Nowhere” when she ran for governor in 2006, even though she said at her introduction by McCain that she was against it–and McCain cited that as a reason for picking her, so she could clean up Washington. As the USA Today story says:
Asked why she supported the bridge, Palin’s communications director Bill McAlister said, “It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn’t necessarily dead … there’s still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design.” She changed her mind, he said, when “she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it…I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed.”
She is good at reevaluation. A dotCommonwealer also dug up her response to a 2006 Eagle Forum election questionnaire:
QUESTION: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
PALIN: 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.
Of course, as even Wikipedia knows, the pledge wasn’t written until 1892, and the phrase “Under God” wasn’t added until the 1950s–at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, natch.
posted September 1, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Gibson: “…this story raises raises many other truly serious questions, beyond the obvious hole in the Palins’ holier-than-thou presentation.”
How is Palin’s 17-year daughter being pregnant with a child to be considered a “hole” or something less than “holier-than-thou”? Palin hasn’t presented herself as a saint. Rather, what has been presented, based on their life story, is that Todd and Sarah Palin are pro-life in deed as well as word.
Like most parents of teenagers, I’m sure they’d prefer their children to wait a few more years before making decisions about love, sex, marriage and children. But in the case of their eldest daughter, it happened earlier than they had hoped. The daughter and boyfriend are now facing some tough decisions — and, no thanks to the liberal blogosphe, are doing so in the glare of global publicity. They have chosen life. The child they’re bringing into this world has the potential — as we all do — for goodness. Let’s applaud them!
Who died and made you judge of right and wrong, of what is and is not a “hole” in “holier than thou” ?
posted September 1, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Reaganite, I remember when we discovered that my grandmother, who was one of those holier than thou types, came and told us that she’d had a child as a teenager. She told us this because she had been contacted by the son after 42 years and he wanted to meet her and her family.
The only thing that made it truly awkward was her attitude over her life. She was always very judgemental about other people. She got angry because my dad married a Baptist rather than a Church of Christ like she was.
So, to see someone who pushes abstinence only education be oblivious to the fact that it’s affected her children means there is a hole. And to see someone cry about the wicked ways of others, and then find out that self-control was obviously a problem means that there is a hole. And that hole is a lack of understanding, and dealing with uncomfortable issues in a reasonable way.
posted September 1, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I love how the Palins say that Bristol is “choosing life” — when in fact if the Republicans (and Mom Sarah in particular) had her way neither Bristol nor any other American female would have any choice at all.
posted September 1, 2008 at 4:45 pm
The “hole” is this: Sarah Palin preaches abstinence, yet she has an unwed teenage daughter. You can’t have it both ways.
posted September 1, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Los: “The ‘hole’ is this: Sarah Palin preaches abstinence, yet she has an unwed teenage daughter. You can’t have it both ways.”
There is no contradiction between encouraging abstinence and learning that your teenage daughter defied you on this. The whole point of teaching abstinence is to underscore the sacred nature of sex and the inevitable consequence of sustained intimacy that is open to the transmission of life: the likelihood that you will create life.
What is the alternative to encouraging abstinence among teenagers? You will say that it is using birth control … but all that does (as we’ve learned in the last 45+ years) is to commodotize the sexual act and rob it of its profound meaning.
How can one be anything other than thoroughly amazed at the courage of this 17-year old woman and her boyfriend to have the child and get married? Compare their attitude with the one enunciated by the left-wing’s preferred Presidential candidate in 2008, who said in April:
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Senator Obama would see this situation as punishment. The Palins see this as a gift. Since this is a blog moderated by a Catholic journalist, which position do you suppose more closely adheres to Catholic teaching?
posted September 1, 2008 at 6:26 pm
This is a distraction. We need to focus on the “Bridge to Nowhere”. the trying to get her EX-brother-in-law fired, and her minimal executive experience.
She believes in abstinence but her daughter didn’t practice as momma taught. This is something many “good” families have to face. Maybe now Gov. Palin will be more sensitive to the problems that the less financially blessed families have to face themselves when their daughters become pregnant. Quality of live is as important as life itself.
posted September 1, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The only thoughtful comments here come from Reaganite in NYC. Otherwise, it has been awhile since I have seen so many sophmoric comments.
For example: “Quality of live is as important as life itself.” What is this supposed to mean? – really folks. “Quality” is such a subjective term that it makes no sense here. Does “scruffy” determine quality? Do I? Does the unborn child? So, if one doesn’t “have the means” one should prefer the killing of an unborn child? There are tons of resources to help “un-wed” mothers and as one who lived in poverty from age 4 until 13, 20-33, I can say it wasn’t all that bad. For example, people used to laugh at me when I was 20 that I didn’t have a tv – I was reading books, building a relationship with my son, and practicing my martial art – not having “quality” items worked out pretty darn well.
Further, Gibson confuses categories. One can “push” for moral values yet, embrace those who fall (which Christians do all the time)- which Christians assert, is also a moral value (because traditional Christians posit all are fallen). Futher, one of the complaints from the right is that they must compete with a sexualized secular culture when trying to instill moral values in the children.
Lastly, someone commented that the “choose” life but want to take that away from others. No, Palin does not want to take away choice. The unborn child doesn’t get a choice – Palin wants to make sure the unborn has a choice. Choice does not overide the taking of innocent life.
posted September 1, 2008 at 8:39 pm
BRAVO! The Republican party and it’s extremist right wing Christian faction prove once again that any double standards is just fine as long as it protect’s their party at all costs. Ergo, conceiving children out wedlock is now a commendable practice! Could someone from any evangelical or catholic church please quote chapter and verse from the Bible to confirm that this fluid ethical standard has an official “good housekeepinng seal of approval” from God Almighty? After all, we’ve been told repeatedly (as least with respect to gay parenting) that “every child “deserves a mother and a father”. Since life purportedly – by those in the know – begins at conception, it logically follows that Palin’s future grandchild would have been better off with a legitimate father at the moment of conception.
posted September 1, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Marc Symmonds: “Ergo, conceiving children out wedlock is now a commendable practice!
Out of pity for you let me take the time to correct you. No one is suggesting that conceiving children out of wedlock is something to be recommended.
What is being said by Christians on this matter:
(1) it is horrific that political opponents are using this matter — involving not the candidate but the candidate’s 17 year old daughter — to score political points or to make the most lurid and misogynist insinuations against the female candidate.
(2) that in the event that a teenage girl becomes pregnant it is preferable for the young woman to bring the child to full birth than to seek to abort the child.
Marc Symmonds, what would you suggest the girl do: seek an abortion? What would you suggest that Governor Palin do: require her daughter to seek an abortion? Just what alternative would you propose in this situation, anyway?
posted September 1, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Hello Reaganite,
Can you honestly tell me that the Religious “Right” would be commending Senator Obama if he had a teenage daughter who had a child out of wedlock? Wouldn’t the Fox Network be attacking him day and night? I personally do not have any problem with Bristol having a child out of wedlock. It is her life to live as she chooses. I do have a problem with “holier-than-thou” people twisting their positions to suit their political agendas. Also, as a parent, I would be concerned that my 14-year old daughter was dating a 23 year-old man (since we were told they have been dating for three years).
posted September 1, 2008 at 9:24 pm
P.S. My thoughts on abortion? Simple: if you’re against it, don’t have one.
posted September 1, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Marc Symmonds: “Can you honestly tell me that the Religious “Right” would be commending Senator Obama if he had a teenage daughter who had a child out of wedlock? Wouldn’t the Fox Network be attacking him day and night?”
“No” to your first question. They wouldn’t “commend” Senator Obama, since he’s not the one who is pregnant with the child. But they WOULD “commend” his daughter for having the courage to choose life and not to abort the child. In my earlier posts, I think I made it clear that I was commending Bristol Palin’s courage for choosing life. I did not commend nor condemn Governor Palin because she’s not the one who’s pregrant.
“No” to the second question. Nor would they be attacking his daughter.
The boorish questions you’re asking confirm the wisdom of Senator Obama’s suggestion today to his supporters to “back off” and not use this personal family matter for political purposes. Please check in with your supervisor at Obama Campaign Headquarters to confirm this. One very understandable and valid reason for Obama’s sensitivity on this matter is that his mother was 18 or 19 when she had him … and the father was a graduate student from Kenya who was already married to a woman in Kenya. So let’s all be careful here NOT to condemn anyone here or be judgemental.
We all assume (as I do) that Barack was a product of genuine love between his parents and that regardless of the circumstances we can look back on this and be damned grateful that Barack’s mother chose life. Whatever political differences some (like myself) might have with Senator Obama, we all cherish the individual for his humanity.
One last thing: Bristol Palin is 17-years old, not 14 as you asserted in your post. One of the younger sister, perhaps, is 14.
posted September 1, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Reaganite, the way I read Marc Symmonds note, he did not seem to be saying anything negative against Bristol Palin. Instead he was questioning whether the “religious right” (and I assume Republicans) would be saying the same things if this had happened on the Democratic side. Also, he did not say that Bristol was 14. He said that since she is now 17 and has been dating her young man for three years, then she must have started dating him when she was 14.
I would hope we could all have civil conversations here, but of course I am new to this blog!
All the best.
posted September 1, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Reganite,
True to your party, you’re very adept at manufacturing “facts”. FOR THE RECORD, I’m not affiliated with the Obama campaign at all (although I’m sure you’d be delighted if I were – what a great story for your conservative friends that would be!)
In marked contrast, it appears that you either fancy yourself as a spokesperson for your party – or perhaps you’re clairvoyant since you’re so “certain” as to what the Republican response might be. Thanks for stepping down from your altar by deigning to respond to my “boorish” comments. Have a good night.
posted September 1, 2008 at 11:45 pm
She’s against sexual education in schools… and pro-life… and Oh, look!
Her teenage daughter is now pregnant!
Not all of us want our young kids to get pregnant, and as you can see now, life happens. Even in one very conservative house where those policies are preached every day … it can happen.
Should abstinence be taught as one more option or should everybody should shut up and accept only that… and follow what this city council person from Wasilla wants…? Wa… wa… what? Yes, Wasilla, with 60 employees, an annual budget of about $12 million and a population of 5,500 people! McSame has shown one more time his amazing inability to make sound decisions! I think the Republicans could come across as very hypocritical, they are against before marriage sexual relations, against any kind of birth control, against abortion, against premarital sex, against sex education and now they say that everything is cool!? That they don’t see anything wrong with that now!? I bet you that if this happened in the Democrats’ side they would be raising hell out of that… and would be saying how Democrats are sinners, immoral, etc…! I can’t imagine FOX news headlines!! And now this mayor of a tiny little town in the middle of nowhere wants all of us to say NOTHING about this…? Wants all of us to turn a blind eye and not say a word!? Like nothing happened here? So, if her high school boyfriend agrees under preasure to marry her… it doesn’t matter!? Who is going to support this newborn? Of course the mayor! Thank goodness that they have the means… but what about the millions of young women who doesn’t have rich parents? Or both of her parents supporting her? Ummhh… I deeply respect the position of senator Obama and his strong statement about not going there, but can’t agree one hundred per cent. Well, Mrs. Candidate I have some news for you: you are running for VP of the USA now! And God forbid, but probably President… And don’t want anybody to take a look at anything in your life? Please!
It doesn’t come that easy lady, if you can’t control your own little girl and your own home at the ‘higher’ moral standards that you preach, how do you think we are going to trust you with the future of our nation!?
She denies all the evidence of Global Warming, wants guns in all homes… the theme of her campaign was the bridge to nowhere… and then she flip-flopped against it…
And what about that ticket to her husband for driving under the influence? What about the unethical decisions and abuse of power trying to get people she doesn’t like fired in her state?
MAN !!!
posted September 1, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Symmonds,
What “facts” did I manufacture? You’re the one “manufacturing facts” when you suggested that the girl started dating the father of their child when she was 14 and that the father in question is 23.
Well, you’re wrong on both counts. According to press accounts, the father is Levi Johnston and he’s 18-years old. They met about 15 months ago.
My suggestion that you need to “check in with your supervisor at Obama headquarters” was tongue-in-cheek. Considering your touchy response and heated denial, however, perhaps I hit a vein of truth.
You asked me two specific questions. I answered them as best as I could. I’m no clairvoyant. If you were irritated by my replies, then don’t ask me questions on this blog.
posted September 2, 2008 at 12:22 am
Q: “BRAVO! The Republican party and it’s extremist right wing Christian faction prove once again that any double standards is just fine as long as it protect’s their party at all costs. Ergo, conceiving children out wedlock is now a commendable practice! Could someone from any evangelical or catholic church please quote chapter and verse from the Bible to confirm that this fluid ethical standard has an official “good housekeepinng seal of approval” from God Almighty?”
A: Matthew 1:18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.”
posted September 2, 2008 at 3:32 am
Alaska has the highest rate of teen STD, and she’s Governor. I’m a little confused are we now advocating for teen pregnancy? Blacks, and Latinos, minorities in general were always demonized for having a high rate of teen pregnancies I mean dogged! for choosing life especially by the religious right.They were called loose, no parental guidance,where were the parents? (working) What makes this so acceptable now? the left has always accepted their wayward children, are the religious right more like the left than they think? but just flip flop for political gains and reasons? why is there now so much Christian forgiveness for this young lady? were not all God’s children worthy of that? instead they were talk down and made to feel terrible and hopeless just statistics. I’ve never seen such blatant hypocrisy, made God be with us.
posted September 2, 2008 at 5:42 am
I would think liberals would be celebrating the news, if only for the fact that they encourage teens to have sex and could care less about wedlock.
Bristol’s situation is the norm for the liberal left (with the exception that she does actually plan to marry the father). So what’s there to talk about?
posted September 2, 2008 at 9:44 am
Kuddos for Palin’s 17 year old daughter’s decision to have this child, but compounding one mistake teen pregnancy at 16 with another shotgun wedding at 18 does not for a long term marriage or good parenting make.
Standing in front of a preacher and saying “I DO” is meaningless if the follow through prospects are virtually nil. It’s the children raised in stable homes with parents in a long term committed relationship that’s desirable NOT signing a marriage certificate a few months or at most a couple of years before hiring a divorce attorney.
posted September 2, 2008 at 10:12 am
I have to admit that I didn’t think I would see this degree of hypocricy and arrogance from the Republicn Party, the religious right, the conservative pundits of Fox news, nor candidates for Vice-President and President. To say that this is an issue that should not be discussed is the most absurd thing I have heard in a long time. In Mrs. Palin, the Republican Vice-Presidential candidat who has stronly urged, and taken as a platform issue and position, that only abstinence and not sex education should be taught in the schools, has been proven to be the absurd moralist that she claims to be. If she and her husband, as well as the schools, had taught sex education and not just abstinence, Bristol might not be pregnant. Sara Palin made this a completely legitimate issue by her strong stance against sex education. What happened to Bristol, while very undortunate and sad, is an issue because her mother made it so.
For the Republicans to now try to turn an illegitimate birth into a positive thing is too unbelieveable for any thinking or educated person to take seriously. Does anyone honestly think this would have been admitted had not related issues been on several blogs? How long di you think Mrs. Palin would have waited before admitting the truth? Clearly until after the election. If it is as okay and acceptable as many of the right wing conservatives and so-called people of religion now claim, why was this not admitted from the start? Why did it take people questioning the truth and honesty of Mrs. Palin to admit the truth?
Equally important, where has the father been until now and why are they not already married? He has know for several months that Bristol was pregnant and has made no effort to marry her. How come it is not until Mrs. Palin is running for Vice-President that the father has decided to marry Bristol? For me, this is nothing but pure politics and obvious pressure placed on the boy, and I emphasize boy. Clearly he would have already married her if that was his intention before he was pressured into doing the correct and honorable thing. To turn this into a positive is so absurd and laughable, that is makes me so ashamed of so many hyprocritical and holier than thou people.
Mrs. Palin has made this an issue, as had the Republican Party, by its neanderthal positon on sex education in schools. As for claims that Bristol’s decision to have the baby is evidence of the pro-life position of the family is something unusual and to be lauded, let me say in no uncertain terms that this is the same decision made by every other teenager I have known who was pregnant, and by the statistics kept by both pro-life and pro-choice organizations.
Bristol has done nothing different than what the vast majority of teenagers who get pregnant have done – have the baby. we never hear anything positive about these girls; all we hear is derision from the far right pundits and religious folks. So what is so special about Bristol if she is doing what approximately 90% of other pregnant teenagers do? Because she is doing something no different than others, why is she and her mother being held up as positive examples?
What does this say to other teenage girls who have sex with their boyfriends? And what does it say to the teenage boys who do not have a prospective mother-in-law running for Vice-President who do as Levi has done and made no effort to marry Bristol until Mrs. Palin was running for Vice-President.
Mrs. Palin’s position on not having sex education in schools has most certainly made this a legitimate issue for the campaign. So has the outrageous efforts by the Republican and conservative spin doctors to turn this into a positive thing, an example of someone doing the correct thing by doing what the vast majority of other teenage girls do. This is even more compounded by the effort to score political points by lauding the fact that the father will now admit to the pregnancy and marry his five-mmonth pregnant girlfriend due to the fact that Mrs. Palin is running for Vice-President.
What an insult to the intelligence of the vast majority of Americans. Mrs. Palin and the Republican Party cannot have it both ways, regardless of the spin doctors to try to downplay the absurdity and hypocricy of a political party. Mrs. Palin and the Republicans, by their postions and statements, have most definitely made this a legitimate political issue regarding their so-called morality, the teaching of sex education in schools, and the outrageous effort to establish a blatant double standard in this country.
While I feel very sorry for Bristol and Levi, it was Bristol’s mother and her political party who made this a valid political issue. Hypocricy will eventually be shown to be what it is, and Mrs. Palin is trying to become an expert at the art of double-talk. We, as American citizens, should demand far better from our politicians and those who are seeking the second highest office in the country. Please do not let them get away with this. Do not let hypocricy and an attempted cover-up be rewarded or considered acceptable. They most defintely are not, and should not, be considered acceptable
An Extremely Concerned Citizen and Believer in Equal Treatment for Everyone
posted September 2, 2008 at 10:58 am
oops, the scandals keep coming with just a few hours since McCain gave us Democrats the “gift”, clearly she was not properly vetted. Women in my office laughed, it was such a lame, obvious attempt to impress the women and pander the vote.
1) A preggers daughter with “daddy’s” my space site saying he did not want to have children(until it was taken down today)–good old fashioned shotgun wedding/romance. The boy wanted the action, not to be a new Daddy.
2) New Impeachment probe(began in July) with recently fired state official accusing her of abuse of power, firing him because he would not fire her ex brother in law, a state trooper. Hell hath no fury like a woman’s sister scorned. She just hired a private defense lawyer this week to defend her on those allegations made BEFORE she was ever a serious choice for VP, so they are not politically-motivated.
3) Hubby alleged to have a DWI
4) Took a record number of earmarks as Mayor and now as Gov, tho she claimed to be against them last week.
5) She was a member of a weird Independent Party for a long time that had the platform for Alaska to Secede from the Union–she didn’t even want to be an American back then
All of this and probably more secrets to be revealed, with only 2 years as Governor, no national experience, Green Acres small-town mayor before that. No international experience at all.
He really messed up his first big decision. “Mavericks” sound cool when venting, but in the real world, it is the quiet gentle patient plodders like Reagan and Roosevelt who get things done.
posted September 2, 2008 at 11:36 am
James Curtis: “It is the quiet gentle patient plodders like Reagan and Roosevelt who get things done.”
Are you kidding? There was nothing quiet or plodding about RR or FDR. And had they been too patient, the US would never have recovered from the Great Depression (FDR) and the Soviet Union might still be in power (RR).
As for gentle, who knows?
In any event they were far kinder and more decent than your scurrilous post of 10:58 AM. “At long last, sir, have you no decency?” — Att. Joseph Welch questioning Sen. McCarthy at the Army-McCarthy hearings.
posted September 2, 2008 at 12:18 pm
“I would think liberals would be celebrating the news, if only for the fact that they encourage teens to have sex and could care less about wedlock.
Bristol’s situation is the norm for the liberal left (with the exception that she does actually plan to marry the father). So what’s there to talk about?
Posted by: Bob | September 2, 2008 5:42 AM”
Nice smear, Bob. I don’t know who are these “liberals” you refer to (seem to be the same mythical creatures who are demonized and vilified daily on Rush and O’Reilly), but they bear no resemblance to real people or real political mores.
So let me set the record straight, Bob. Progressives aren’t celebrating teen pregnancy or teen sex for that matter. Progressives simply want sex education to be taught to young people, and for birth control to be taught to young people. The invisible wall of protection that is “abstinence education” is one of the reasons why we have so many young people engaging in risky sex with no birth control, getting pregnant, and having abortions. Yes, I said it – this kind of policy actually leads to more abortions than fewer abortions, because what is Daddy’s little Christian princess supposed to do? Go tell her father that she’s been getting busy with her 16 year old boyfriend, and now she’s knocked up? The easiest way out of that mess is to just go get it “taken care of.”
This is the dark underbelly of the religious right’s program of abstinence education.
posted September 3, 2008 at 8:06 am
I feel that abstinance is still the best birth control. I am also aware that with the moral standards of our society being so “liberal” when it comes to sex, we need a better program.Sex education and birth control alone won’t help the problem. We need to strongly emphasize abstinance along with it. Maybe if our society wasn’t so liberal in its thinking and actions and went back to being more conservative, maybe things could get better.
In reference to Senator Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy,well that should be a family affair.Everyone else should stay out of it.
I am so tired of all of the political agendas. I just want a President who really looks out for the people.
posted September 3, 2008 at 8:53 am
Debbie:
You do like the broad sweeping generalization, don’t you? But regarding sex education, let me be clear about this, since I grew up in NJ – a “liberal” state – and back in the 80′s when I was in high school we were taught sex education in the public school.
First, abstinence IS taught as part of sex education. The teachers at our schools were not handing around condoms saying, “Go out and have fun – there aren’t any REAL consequences!” No no no no no. They were telling us to avoid sex before marriage at all costs, and they used real information as evidence for this argument, such as what happens to your bank account or your college plans when you have to take care of a baby, or what happens when you get Herpes – which NEVER GOES AWAY! Yes, there were some people in our school who had sex anyway – but many of us took to heart these lessons we received at school and we allowed our reason to play a part in the equation. So sex education teaches kids first and foremost to avoid sex. But if students aren’t going to pay heed to this advice, then you teach them about the different kinds of birth control, the effectiveness of each, STDs (including the very real possibility of contracting AIDS), and you teach them about pregnancy. This equips them with real knowledge so that they have the best possible chance to make good choices when they are faced with them – it is never a program of pushing immorality or promiscuity on teens. Never.
I have mentioned this before on these boards, but let me tell it again as a counter example. As an adult we moved to Texas, and I have an in-law who grew up in a public school system with no sex ed, and in a religious household that pushed the stigma of teen sex and especially teen pregnancy. When this girl became active and got pregnant, even though she was from an extremely conservative family who were about the most religious people imaginable, she felt her only way “out” was to have an abortion, which she reluctantly did. Why? Because there was no way to face her family, her church, and her community. In her situation, it was conservative “values” that actually caused her to seek abortion – and I know that if she would have been taught about birth control she would never have had to make such a terrible decision.
My point here is not just that conservative family values have a “dark side,” but also that young people need to be educated about these matters. Give them all the tools they need to be able to make better choices, and don’t deprive them of the knowledge that can save their lives.
posted September 3, 2008 at 11:06 am
DEAR BRISTOL,
JUST AS THE GENTLE AND SERENE WINDS OF THE FALL BREEZE HERE IN BRISTOL,CT BEGIN TO TURN THE LEAVES TO MAGNIFICANT COLORS.
I AM SURE THAT YOU WILL BE A TERRIFIC MOTHER AND THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE MATTER.
I AM VOTING FOR JOHN MCCAIN AND YOUR WONDERFUL MOTHER, GOV. PALIN!
GOD’S BLESSINGS TO YOU
CAROLYN
posted September 3, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I find it very informative how some of my fellow Christians define “family values”. The question about Palin’s famiy values does not, for me, center around her advocating abstinance only or the fact that such advocacy failed with her daughter. (It happens to the best of us, I totally undertand that and condemn neither daughter nor mother for it.)
My “family values” problem with Sarah Palin is her evident lack of commitment to choices she has previously made. She chose to have five children (abstinance also works in marriage if you are against using birth control). For someone who truly has family values, that choice implies commiting to take on a great deal of **personal** responsibility. The agreement to be a mother does not come with an opt out clause that says it’s ok to turn the responsibility over to others because you have political ambitions.
Palin has a young baby, other young children, and a child who’s about to become a mother herself (believe me, she’s going to need her mother when that happens). Yet, Sarah Palin chooses to put “Country First”, even at this time of her children’s lives. One can argue the feminist perspective that “I am woman. Hear me roar” – women can do both – have a career and children. Yes, they can, but they can’t be said to have very solid family values if they do that when they have the chance to be a full time mom to their own small children. She gets no kudos or tag of “hero” from me for her choice to put family second.
The Vice Presidency of the U.S. is no ordinary 9-5 job. On so many levels, I find Sarah Palin lacking the qualifications needed for it. Where family values is concerned, I question both her judgement and McCains for even putting her into consideration. He shouldn’t have asked and she should have said no, not at this time.
Then again, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised she said yes. Any woman who is leaking amniotic fluid who 1. only speaks to her doctor by phone and doesn’t seek hands on medical help, 2. then spends many hours traveling past well equipped hospitals and 3. worse yet, isn’t even full term …. has to be regarded as reckless as best and hoping to kill her unborn baby at worst. She does not get my nod as a role model for mothers for it.
So, no, we don’t have to condemn young Bristol or her mother for Bristol’s pregnancy. We shouldn’t condemn them. But, we can surely question Sarah Palin’s choices as a woman and as a mother (especially, since she was chosen because she’s a woman). This all goes directly to character, as far as I’m concerned. I find hers lacking.
posted September 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm
It is so ironic and hypocritical how family values was once a conservative agenda and as soon as it happens to one of those conservative hypocrites, its okay to make a mistake because they plan on marrying anyway, how convenient. You people need some help on how you think and how you can easily get manipulated.
posted September 14, 2008 at 3:00 am
Is teen pregnancy now just a sign of An American Family? What is going on here?”
Black and Hispanic parents, raising children in the midst of social chaos, striving to instill values better than those of their hopelessly disordered neighborhoods, will now contend with yet one more notoriously public pregnant child celebrity. One more occasion to explain why their daughters should fight off the temptation to replicate yet another celebrity’s imprudence.
Here are parents of every race, class and background valiantly trying to offset an intrusive media’s corrosive impact in the lives of their children, as they cope with a public school system that reinforces the media’s socially destructive messages. As though in partnership with these negative forces, along come the pro-lifers, who validate youthful sexually promiscuous behavior, by celebrating its inevitable outcome and consequences. They have not only helped to normalize illegitimate childbirth, but have raised it to the status of saintliness. Instead of a Scarlet Letter, Hester gets a heads up and encouragement to repeat her folly.
And now we’re confronted with a major politician expressing no regrets for the mistake made by her underage daughter, but actually celebrating it as a “beautiful” event. Why should not Palin’s two younger daughters crave the attention and spotlight now being lavished on the older one, and look forward to repeating her example – along with the many girls around the country who are awed by the spectacle of an unwed teenager being celebrated at a prominent political convention?
Was it right to have this unmarried, pregnant 17-year-old girl at the Republican convention holding hands with her boyfriend on national and global television, therefore normalizing an out-of-wedlock sexual relationship and pregnancy at the highest level of our national life?
Republicans can no longer express negative judgment about out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Since when, is it good news that a 17-year-old high school student will be caring for her new born, while still in school?
And why are the circumstances presented to the public by Palin considered acceptable? Because Bristol’s baby is not being aborted. The non-abortion turns the unmarried pregnancy and the upcoming teen-age marriage into a blessed event! … This is the way these “Christian” conservatives are responding – because of the moral reductionism that effectively eliminates all moral evils except for the evil of abortion….
posted March 11, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Pretty cool blog you’ve got here. Thanks for it. I like such themes and anything that is connected to this matter. I definitely want to read a bit more on that blog soon.
Bella Benedict
milano escort girl