(11 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
Crossposted at Daily Kos and My Left Wing.
I’ve got to be with Wolcott on this one, who is apparently standing with Lawrence Auster on this one::
The issue is whether McCain should have chosen as his vice presidential running mate-and thus required the Republican party to approve that choice-a woman who has all these issues going on in her family.
…
McCain has put the conservative base in a position where it has to bend itself out of shape to maintain its support for the Republican ticket.
Now, I personally am delighted that McCain–maverick that he is–chose a candidate that, within hours of the selection, has exploded into a veritable pile of soap-opera-ish stories and sagas. I like watching the Right scramble about, trying to find new and exciting ways to justify their deeply held beliefs and morals (chuckle) with their unending quest for power.
But some have deemed portions of Palin’s life to be “off limits,” especially in the case of Bristol’s pregnancy.
I have to vaguely disagree.
To quote Wolcott:
No, I don’t want to see Bristol Palin persecuted by the media; leave her personally in peace.
Nor do I. I hope she finds happiness, I hope she has a healthy and bubbly little baby who will give her many years of joy and love and all that happy horseshit that parents yak at me about.
But we would be fools to completely ignore the situation, to pretend it doesn’t exist. The situation we should be concerned about has nothing to do with Bristol’s pregnancy, the status of her marriage or the various ironies people can find within.
The situation is–and should be–about McCain’s judgment, especially towards base.
I’m not fan of Auster, but if you give a chimp enough paint and enough time, eventually he’ll paint something wortwhile:
As I’ve already pointed out, the subject here is not the personal situation of Bristol. The subject is that a woman with Bristol’s situation in her family should not be running for vice president.
I think this the most likely point at which some of you who are reading this will hurriedly dash to the comment section to call me an idiot or some such thing; if I may delay that action, however:
I personally do not think that the status of Palin’s daughter disqualifies Palin’s candidacy. I am a rational human being, knowing full well that kids are kids and that pregnancies occur. It says nothing about Palin’s abilities as a mother, nor should it say anything about her capabilities to be Vice President.
However….
Reactions such as Auster’s displays the foolishness and the division of McCain’s base. Some are fine with this because she’s not getting an abortion, which is all that truly matters and thus she’s fine. Some are not fine with this because it speaks of morals they cannot support.
Auster himself goes on to say:
A woman with an illegitimately pregnant 17 year old daughter should have kept it private by not running for vice president.
Wow.
So, in a way, I think that Bristol’s pregnancy is very relevant to the discussions at hand. Not on a personal level (joy, love, babies, etc.), but rather as an indication that McCain’s judgment is so bad at this point that it could be legally deemed “biblically horrific.”
He chose a Vice President who has numerous issues and “baggage” swirling around her and her family. Some of those issues are serious problems for his base, a base which he must actively shore up to even stay WITHIN within striking distance of Obama.
His judgment had been suspect within our circles for a long time. Now it’s starting to be publicly suspect in HIS circles.
That’s a big deal, and it makes Palin’s family matters relevant in that respect.
Now, because I can’t quite resist pointing out the absurdity of the Right, I’d like to end with two quotes, the first of which from Jack Tapper:
What would the response be if Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and his wife Michelle had a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter?
Wolcott’s response is, as usual, focused and incisive:
I can answer that. Mona Charen, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin would sprout bat wings and fangs and start divebombing, Peggy Noonan would issue a pained sigh that would ruffle nun’s robes from here to Hoboken, Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett would engage in a finger-wagging contest to condemn our loose licentious liberal culture, and Jennifer Rubin at Commentary’s Contentions would crash into the wall doing cartwheels.
Indeed.
8 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
after reading this article (h/t to someone in sensible shoes pro-smite button diary at orange ) that palin was picked for one reason:
…on the diary overall, though obviously my impulse control is lacking…but…
…critiquing a working mom of my generation on whether she should be doing something because her kid is pregnant is (a) genuinely sexist and (b) a nonstarter.
That said, there is one way this situation is relevant, and reflects directly on her character. Just ask, can you imagine being Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter? I mean…criminey.
I think it’s clearly sexist: If Todd rather than Sarah Palin were the nominee, and Bristol was pregnant, nobody would say he should stay home and deal with it.
Obama’s right. It’s time to STFU about this part of it and let the wrathful, judging, moralistic Repubs rip each other to shreds.
not as I do.
That is the Republican motto this year. They are about to nominate a man that:
Only recently became pro-life because it suited his ambition.
Only recently embraced the Fundies when it suited his ambition.
And, they are about to nominate a woman that:
Is married to someone that would have Alaska secede from the union.
Is mother to someone that didn’t quite understand the whole “family values thing”.
Is governor of a state with approximately the same population as Baltimore and thinks that is executive experience.
The ticket is in turmoil, they know they’re not going to win, and they think that “Boogah Boogah! The Democrats will kill babies and raise your taxes” still resonates with the voters that weren’t yet old enough to vote for Nixon.
If I say I am a straight talking man of the people, but own more homes than I even know about, I am not being honest.
Watch the speakers at the convention, talking to a “crowd” of white wealthy wasps, and you can just hear the G.O.P. groan its rheumatoid self to destruction.
the discussion of Cheney and his daughter, Mary’s, sexual orientation in 2004.
IMO, this information is selectively disclosed by the Republican candidates to bait the Democrats; and in the case of Edwards, the bait was taken. Does anyone remember how much pity Cheney garnered after that debate? While the Republicans are telling us not to talk about it, that’s exactly what they want us to do – this is how they operate.
I think that these topics should be open for discussion, especially if it means some parents embracing and loving their children – no matter what. However, I don’t think that’s the intention of the Republicans here – I agree, that if the situations were reversed, the conservative media would tear into the Democrats. And, when/if any Democrats choose to discuss this – even in a positive way – that’s exactly what they’ll do… in fact, they’re counting on it.