…and this is a 
Word from the Democratic presidential candidate on the recent announcement from Sarah Palin (among other rumors):
"Let me be a clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits, and people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor, or her potential performance as a vice president.
"And 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, you know, teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off limits."
The issues here should not be "OMG her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock", but "What are the candidates proposed policies for dealing with the issue of teen pregnancy?" That Palin's daughter is pregnant should not be of any concern to either campaign; that Palin's policies of an active maintenance of reproductive ignorance are manifest failures is.
(By the way, I notice I have something in common with Obama: my mother was also 18 when she had me!)
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Greg | September 1, 2008 4:22 PM
Right on. I also fault Gov. Palin for knowingly thrusting her daughter's condition into the global spotlight. She could have turned down McCain's offer. I feel bad for the daughter having to face this in front of the whole world.
Posted by: Pablo | September 1, 2008 4:23 PM
Then again, Palin is the one making things like this an issue. It is pretty galling for an anti-abortion advocate to take a stance that "it's a private matter for the family." Are you kidding me?
Posted by: Sara M. | September 1, 2008 4:27 PM
PZ for president!
Posted by: Patricia | September 1, 2008 4:27 PM
OT - but I don't care - Does anyone know if Rev. BigDumbChimp is OK? Or Scooter?
Posted by: Meng Bomin | September 1, 2008 4:28 PM
Exactly. This should not be used as a personal attack against Governor Palin, though it does expose a flaw in the policies she represents, which is the real issue and would be whether or not her daughter was pregnant.
Posted by: I am so wise | September 1, 2008 4:28 PM
Look not having sex isn't hard. I am to save myself for marriage (or the next hot chick I see). All it takes is some self discipline and desire to punish humanity by refusing to reproduce the genes that make me a genius.
Palin's daughter pregnancy shows she is irresponsible. If she cannot control her daughter, how she going to reign in rogue leaders, extremist elements of both the GOP and democrats, and lead this nation during McCain's naps?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 4:31 PM
I half agree. It is a pity that Bristol, who probably has no control over her mother's decisions to run for VP or the media's attention to her personal matters, will be in the spotlight.
On the other hand, she represents an important fact that the Right's "Abstinence Only Education" is less effective for preventing teenage pregnancy and STD than actually teaching real prevention techniques, as well as so-called "family values" just don't work in real life.
I mean, how are people supposed to ignore this when Palin's own party, and she herself, has always claimed that this wouldn't happen if only people were God fearing and moral?
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 1, 2008 4:34 PM
Lying about her private life in such a fashion isn't admirable but it shouldn't be a major issue, but the fact that she is apparently screwed up enough to force her daughter to have a child she cannot possibly be ready and able to care for is a huge point against her. A person so void of basic human compassion, with such screwed up priorities, should not be anywhere near any position of power.
Posted by: Kobra | September 1, 2008 4:34 PM
For once, I am in 100% agreement with PZ.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 4:34 PM
I am so wise, #6: Look not having sex isn't hard.
The issue isn't how hard it is to not have sex. The issue is that nothing is wrong with having sex, and that other people shouldn't be telling other people when, where, and in what situations they should be having sex.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2008 4:35 PM
If she cannot control her daughter,
Wow. I didn't know 17 year olds were a thing to be controlled. Nice.
Posted by: SC | September 1, 2008 4:36 PM
Patricia @ #4,
Rev. BDC posted on his blog about 2 hours ago, saying Hanna was headed stright for them:
http://bigdumbchimp.blogspot.com/
It's worrisome.
Posted by: Jesse, Dallas | September 1, 2008 4:39 PM
I got to be honest, I HAVE been enjoying this story. What does an abstinence-only, anti-abortion lifestyle get you? Apparently 5 kids with one of them pregnant.
But then I kept reading, and I saw something that pissed me off.
Sarah Palin is announcing that her daughter WILL be marrying the father.
Is this some sort of return to arranged marriages? The girl is only 17!! If gay marriage somehow dilutes the sanctity of marriage, what's with marrying people far to young to know what marriage even means? Anyone know the divorce rate of marriages-at-17?
Posted by: Joel | September 1, 2008 4:39 PM
but the fact that she is apparently screwed up enough to force her daughter to have a child she cannot possibly be ready and able to care for
And how did you manage to come to this conclusion? I doubt you know if her daughter was forced into any decision and I doubt if you know anything about her daughter's abilities as a mother.
IMO, the only thing we do know is this is a matter for them to resolve and everyone else needs to just STFU and mind their own business.
Posted by: Irene | September 1, 2008 4:40 PM
Obama is right. The Democrats shouldn't criticize Palin because her daughter has gotten pregnant out of wedlock and while still a teen. That would be insensitive and plain wrong. Plus, it's the fundamentalist "family values" crowd who insist on no sex before wedding! No need to reinforce this mindset.
But the Democrats should criticize Palin for dragging her teenage daughter into the public arena with this announcement. And they should pile criticize on Palin's refusal to support explicit sex-ed while saying nothing about her daughter! It wouldn't be necessary: the media coverage will make the link abundantly clear for anybody with half a brain functionning.
Posted by: JStein | September 1, 2008 4:41 PM
PZ, I'm with you and Obama about not dragging her into this.
The real problem for me (and I'm going to say this at full risk of sounding like my dad) is not what happened, but the fact that she lied about it.
The hypocrisy of the religious right (and those who suffer from Larry Craig Syndrome) aside, this is a campaign that has perjured itself to the American people twice, that we know of, and it's only September.
Governor Palin is entitled to deal with her family issues however she wants, and she should receive no penalty for that in the free nation we live in, but the fact that she's lying to the American people so openly and easily is really a matter of public interest.
We don't need another Dick Cheney, a creeping behind-the-scenes figure cloaked in secrecy.
Posted by: robbrown | September 1, 2008 4:41 PM
Too bad several of the first comments here found a roundabout way to turn it into an issue. I especially think this comment makes no sense: "It is pretty galling for an anti-abortion advocate to take a stance that "it's a private matter for the family.""
Maybe if Sarah herself had an abortion, that would make sense, but since she didn't, and her daughter didn't....why does it matter beyond noticing that she DOES stick to her principles?
I wholeheartedly disagree with Palin's (and McCain's) policies, and I wholeheartedly agree with Obama on this. It is not an issue. Her policies are. What is so hard about resisting the urge to pounce on a private issue?
Posted by: tristero | September 1, 2008 4:41 PM
I agree only up to a point. The values of the milieu she claims to represent make it very clear that under these circumstances, Sarah Palin is performing poorly as a mother. Those are not my values, but hers.
In short, if Christianists truly believe what Dobson says, that family must come before career, Palin has no choice but to resign immediately. Both the nomination and the governorship.
Feminists believe the situation is more nuanced and complex, that career need not be overshadowed by family commitments. But Palin and Dobson are not feminists and what they say is clear; Palin should resign now.
You can read Dobson's thoughts on this here, or go to the Focus on the Family website and search under "teen pregnancy."
Posted by: Sili | September 1, 2008 4:41 PM
Thank you, Chiroptera. A succint lesson that I really needed to be reminded of.
-o-
They're already on H? Damn.
Posted by: Moses | September 1, 2008 4:42 PM
Obama is a douche. It's the party of "do as I say, not as I do" and he needs to emphasize that. Of course, Mr. Fund-the-war and trash-the-Constitution isn't a whole lot better so I guess casting stones at another 'moral failure' of the "family values" party isn't his cup of tea.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2008 4:43 PM
JStein, that's something completely different, and it has no basis of support, and is pretty ludicrous besides. If you're going to rumor-monger, at least get your pregnancies straight.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 4:44 PM
Obama said:
Smart move, the way Kerry and Edwards used Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter seemed to backfire on them even though it seemed to point to Cheney's hypocrisy in supporting Bush's agenda to prevent gay marriage.
Leave it to the bloggers and Op-Ed writers to do the dirty work of forever reminding people of the things they don't want to know about. This is a gossip, not a policy, issue.
But hell, just saying he won't mention it is a way of mentioning it. It's not going away no matter what he says.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2008 4:47 PM
If nothing else, remember that every minute between now and the election COUNTS when it comes to forming people's opinions on who they will vote for. Every time Palin's family is brought up, you know what that's going to do? It's going to remind everyone of the girl in their own family who got pregnant. Pretty much everybody has one. It's going to remind them of that girl, they're going to feel defensive, and they're going to be PISSED OFF at the person making the snide comments, and feel protective towards Palin and her family. That is not the way to win an election. Every sound bite, every article, every blog post wasted on Palin's family situation is a wasted opportunity to hammer her and McCain on their actual policies and legislative actions.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 1, 2008 4:47 PM
She's 17, and she's caring for a special needs child. "She might be up to this" is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
Posted by: robbrown | September 1, 2008 4:50 PM
Chiroptera, surely you noticed that "i am so wise" is posting in jest, no?
Posted by: Patricia | September 1, 2008 4:50 PM
Thankyou SC. I sure hope he grabs his bacon supply and runs! :(
Posted by: I am so wise | September 1, 2008 4:51 PM
"Wow. I didn't know 17 year olds were a thing to be controlled. Nice."
Yes, underage children are something their parents are responsible for. Children have an extended phenotype that affects everything around them. If parents are unable to raise them properly than smarter people, like myself, need to step in and, in a Christ like way, administer corrective and loving mockery, as to save their souls from the hell fires of damnation.
I believe there is a term for that. That term is hero.
Posted by: Jesse, Dallas | September 1, 2008 4:51 PM
Alright, I found some statistics. It looks like, by the numbers, Sarah Palin's daughter is going to be 2-3 times more likely to end her marriage than others, based on age alone. I have a feeling that the divorce rate of shotgun weddings have to be even higher still.
End of the day, the only reason this is an important issue is for everyone to recognize the logical consequences of the abstinence-only, anti-abortion, no-sex-outside-of-marriage-so-you-better-get-married lifestyle.
Posted by: Moses | September 1, 2008 4:51 PM
I read that teenage marriages experience an 80%-85% divorce rate in England. I tried for US information, but all the publications were behind subscription walls. But even the abstracts indicated that these marriages broke apart early and often.
Posted by: Copache | September 1, 2008 4:53 PM
My mother was 18 as well.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2008 4:54 PM
Damn it, I bought it! Ok, bravo, wise, bravo.
Posted by: Zeno | September 1, 2008 4:54 PM
I applaud Obama's statement.
Leave it to the tabloids and some of the wackier blogs to fuss over.
Keep the focus on Sarah Palin's extremist political views and blatant misrepresentations (like that bridge thing).
Posted by: Jesse, Dallas | September 1, 2008 4:58 PM
>I read that teenage marriages experience an 80%-85% divorce rate in England
Yikes
This isn't something I expect politicians to comment on, but as a people, we got to look at the consequences of this sort of lifestyle. *shudder*
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 4:59 PM
robbrown, #25:
Heh. A dozen new comments each minute, and you expect me to read them carefully?
Yes, I guess I better.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | September 1, 2008 5:00 PM
The Democrats hardly have to publicize the Palin baby. For once the rottenness of the media, its obsession with sex and scandal, insures that the story will have continue for weeks or at least until Palin drops out, which I expect she will eventual.
Posted by: Chris Crawford | September 1, 2008 5:00 PM
There are so MANY good reasons to find Ms. Palin unacceptable, why bother screwing around with lousy reasons?
Posted by: robbrown | September 1, 2008 5:01 PM
Chiroptera... :)
For what its worth, I clicked through to i am so wise's blog.....that boy is funny.
Bookmarked...
Posted by: The Science Pundit | September 1, 2008 5:01 PM
@Kobra (#9)
Your mother also had you when you were 18?
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | September 1, 2008 5:02 PM
I respectfully disagree with Senator Obama here. I see this as a very relevant point of discussion. If they want to present Governor Palin as a conservative Christian moral values candidate, then it's quite valid to point out her apparent failure to teach conservative Christian moral values to her own family.
Posted by: Abstruse | September 1, 2008 5:03 PM
She made her family a campaigning tool. She made it fair game.
IMHO
Posted by: Jesse, Dallas | September 1, 2008 5:04 PM
Jim Harrison #35
From what I've been seeing in the last week, McCain announcing her as VP went over as well as the whole Democratic National Convention. Obama and McCain are in a dead heat, just like they were two weeks ago.
Unless this escalates, I think she's here for the long haul.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | September 1, 2008 5:06 PM
Doh! I meant "when she was 18"
Posted by: Patricia | September 1, 2008 5:07 PM
My parents married when my mother was 16, they have been married 53 years. The old grouch and I married before I was 20, and we've been married for 33 years. However, we are the sole survivors in the marriage game out of our entire high school graduating class. That's pretty crappy odds.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 5:08 PM
Chris Crawford asked:
Because people love gossip a lot more than they like real policy debates. I can't help it, my ears popped open once I heard that on CNN and before that they were talking about hurricane Gustav and now I can't even remember what they said about Gustav... Is Bush leaving early to do something down there?
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | September 1, 2008 5:09 PM
I like it the other way. It's much funnier.Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 5:10 PM
If she wants to have her head in the sand when it comes to sex education, then that is fine,... It has come to bite her on the ass, and that is her affair.
When she tries to claim these same strategies should be part of how we run our schools? Well, then she is a statistic we are all free to reference,,,
Do not open a can of worms unless you have a bigger can to put them back in after you are done...
Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 5:11 PM
By the way, does any of this remind anyone of, "The Bird-Cage?
Just wondering...
Posted by: Derik N | September 1, 2008 5:12 PM
He has to tread a thin line here
don't think for a second he won't be highlighting her policies in this area, now just isn't the time
Posted by: Jesse, Dallas | September 1, 2008 5:14 PM
Lago #46
>If she wants to have her head in the sand when it comes
>to sex education, then that is fine,... It has come to
>bite her on the ass, and that is her affair.
But it's not. She has a 17-yr old daughter getting caught in the crossfire, a guy (who knows how old) who has no choice in the matter, and lets not forget the kid.
Three casualties to a broken lifestyle.
Posted by: sfatheist | September 1, 2008 5:14 PM
Breaking News on MSNBC: Sarah Palin has just hired an attorney.
This story just keeps getting better and better...or worse and worse.
Posted by: tikistitch | September 1, 2008 5:17 PM
Sorry, PZ, but I strongly disagree. If *I* get pregnant, according to Ms. Palin, the government gets to come in and tell me what to do. Why shouldn't I get to weigh in on Bristol? If we're gonna make reproductive decisions a public matter, then I say, quoting ANOTHER prominent douchebag, bring it on.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 5:18 PM
Lago wrote:
It's not necessarily because her daughter didn't know about condoms or couldn't get the pill. The girl may have wanted the baby, perhaps as a way to get the boy?
Those details I expect to come out.
Posted by: Lago | September 1, 2008 5:19 PM
Jesse, Dallas
Please reread what I wrote...
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 1, 2008 5:19 PM
Because generations of manipulative fables, self-serving ministers, and stupid but well-intentioned parents have thoroughly sold the public on the idea that being a decent human being obligates you to bring a rose to every gunfight no matter who started it or what's at stake?
Posted by: mayhempix | September 1, 2008 5:20 PM
PZ is correct.
It is about public policy, not private lives.
But if what Palin teaches her children is the same view that she advocates in the public arena then it is fair game to question her.
Does she believe responsible sex and birth control should be taught in public schools so that all teens understand and can have private access to birth control?
Or does she believe it is soley up to the parents and if the parents teach abstinence only the kid is shit out of luck?
Posted by: Robert | September 1, 2008 5:20 PM
While I believe it is a private matter for the family, it says a lot about both Mrs Palin's values and her success as a mother.
Her daughter is teenaged, pregnant and unmarried. If, as is likely, the pregnancy is unplanned, this is an indication of what lack of sex-education results in (hint: it doesn't stop the sex).
Bristol Palin plans to marry the father, apparently. Did she plan to do so before her parents found out she was pregnant? What about the father? Did he agree without pressure? These are highly relevant questions (albeit ones we aren't likely to get answers to). For that matter, when did Mr & Mrs Palin find out their daughter was pregnant - was it still in the first trimester, or did Bristol Palin hide the pregnancy as long as possible?
Mrs Palin campaigns on a family-values platform. However, her own family seems to be needing parental attention (which could be provided by her husband - parental problems are cause by both parents).
While it is appropriate for the official Obama campaign to stay away from these issues, they are legitimate questions to be asked.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 1, 2008 5:21 PM
If true, that would be about three orders of magnitude more damning as regards Sarah Palin's parenting and values.
Posted by: Jesse, Dallas | September 1, 2008 5:24 PM
Lagos,
Touche, sir. :P
Posted by: Signout | September 1, 2008 5:25 PM
Indeed! If you think about it, John McCain got Sarah Palin's daughter pregnant.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 5:27 PM
Azkyroth wrote:
Up to a point I would agree. It's not much of a choice is it? Either her daughter was ignorant or she is desperately manipulative. But how much control does a mother have over her daughters psychology?
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 1, 2008 5:29 PM
Impressing on her that producing a child by deception to use as leverage is incredibly vile, while she was growing up, couldn't have been that hard.
Posted by: df | September 1, 2008 5:29 PM
I posted the following points in a comment on Ed's blog also. I consider the rumours to be vicious and unfounded. But I do believe here behavior at the Dallas governor's conference disturbing and indicative of questionable judgement:
1) She made needless risks after her water broke in Dallas by going ahead with her speech at the conference, then flying back from Dallas to Anchorage and finally making an hour long drive to her local hospital in Palmer. This was all supposedly done to ensure that her baby was born in Alaska.
2) She displayed a callous disregard for her fellow travelers by flying after her water broke. Going into labor during the flight could have forced a medical diversion of the flight and inconvenienced a lot of people in the process. Not to mention the risks to the child and mother should they be forced to deliver in flight.
3) She deceived the airline by not disclosing that her water had broken. I don't believe a commercial airline would knowingly let a woman who was in an advanced pregnancy and whose water had broken get on a flight.
Posted by: Mold | September 1, 2008 5:30 PM
Ms Palin opened the door when she LIED about the parentage. I doubt any adult would fault moms and the GovernorDad from stepping up to the plate when babymama became preggers. We all would lend a hand or two or three.
As far as teen marriages, the pre-Bush stats were very clear. Teens have sex, not marriage. Lots of he-man stud muffins at 16 are less than acceptable when one turns 26, much less 36. Something about the lad still driving his Camaro and working at the same low-wage job that he had when he lived with his parents.
It is relevant. She LIED. She lied about babymama, she lied about the bridge, she lied about TrooperGate, she overstated (a form of lying to academics) her credentials...
If she had told us that her kid was the babymama and to go to hell...I would have agreed it was not our business. But, to spread lies for so long....that goes to the heart of her philosophy and her actions.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 5:35 PM
Azkyroth wrote:
Maybe... But let's not jump the gun. Teenagers are not entirely sane when compared with adults.
It might have been the girl's parents that were being manipulated, not the boy. Maybe they both wanted to be married but knew their parents would say "no" unless she were pregnant.
Posted by: Mold | September 1, 2008 5:36 PM
They knew. Babymama was out of school for the pregnancy. Look up mononucleosis in the NIH and you'll realize the hypocrisy of the family.
Is the marriage to the biological dad or some cute sprat with a need for cash? (see Jamie Lynn Spears-Britney 2.0 for the background)
Why does this family look more and more like A$$holis maximus daddums and Screamingus maximus bitchius? Daddy Todd has been attending confidential government meetings. Did you vote for him?
Posted by: natural cynic | September 1, 2008 5:37 PM
How long is it going to be before Palin announces that she is withdrawing "To spend more time with her family">? The MSM and the fundies can do all the dirty work.
Then the MSM should start asking McSame about how he vetted Palin. From all accounts I have seen, the answer is hardly at all. And only then should the Dems start insinuating that McSame has poor judgment.
Can anyone say Eagleton?
Posted by: David Utidjian | September 1, 2008 5:39 PM
Ermm... what if Bristol's lover does not want to get married?
-DU-
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | September 1, 2008 5:41 PM
That's what shotguns are for. Duh.Posted by: NickG | September 1, 2008 5:44 PM
From CNN: "The McCain aide insisted a key point to keep in mind is that Bristol decided to keep the baby, a decision 'supported by her parents.'"
What gets me is that they are proud that Bristol made the right choice.... yet Sarah Palin and McCain don't want other young women like Bristol to have that same choice.
The hypocrisy. It burns.
Posted by: NickG | September 1, 2008 5:48 PM
Her mom is a lifetime NRA member and hunts moose. I would be buying a ring and I'm gay.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 5:52 PM
NickG wrote:
Until someone gets an honest interview with Bristol we can't be sure she actually had much of a choice.
Posted by: justawriter | September 1, 2008 5:54 PM
What a master stroke. In one swell foop the McCain-Palin campaign again has democrats castigating Democrats while and taking everyone's eye off the prize.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2008 5:58 PM
repost, belongs here. And I got it right. If this had happened to Obama and Biden, the fundies would be all over them about godless hippies having too much fun. If it was one of theirs, well, it is nobodies business.
Oddly enough I would agree with this. I would also add girl friends, boy friends and so on. If we tossed every politician who ever fooled around with someone or did a line of something or smoked a joint in college, there wouldn't be anyone left. We are expecting perfection in our leaders and humans are anything but. I once knew the son of one of our governors. He was a long term, hard core heroin addict. Since he was connected he got on a free drugs maintenance program easily.
The reason why we can't and don't ignore social blunders is simple. One party's private life is private while the other party's private life is evidence of dark evil. Ask Bill Clinton about how that works. A lot of the thugs trying to impeach him had mistresses and children out of wedlock and chased young boys or hung around in restrooms in Minnesota.
Obama is smart to take the high road. Everyone will agree and promptly ignore him. Palin is a gift from the irony and hypocracy gods.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 5:59 PM
justawriter wrote:
How can this help McCain-Palin? There are speakers now at the Republican convention and no one cares what they say.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 1, 2008 6:00 PM
Uh --
Is that so in the USA?
I'm with comment 56, BTW.
Posted by: Luke | September 1, 2008 6:00 PM
I think it's dreadfully hypocritical to say that families and children are "off limits" whilst parading them around at party conventions.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2008 6:02 PM
Norman Doering, #74: How can this help McCain-Palin? There are speakers now at the Republican convention and no one cares what they say.
That may be how it's helpful :P
C'mon, you knew someone was going to say it!
Posted by: imflyboy | September 1, 2008 6:06 PM
Joel #14
You're an idiot! Palin has made sex-ed and reproductive choice part of her position as a politician. If there's an issue of her child having an out of wedlock pregnancy or her lying about it then I think it fair game for public debate. Once again McCain seems to be making the Democrats argument for them. BTW couldn't a simple pregnancy test resolve the issue?(never had a to worry about and hope not to for some time) If my integrity was being challenged on this issue I'd be the first to suggest it
Posted by: timcol | September 1, 2008 6:12 PM
It's fascinating to me that Palin's handlers are saying this is a private "family matter". And I totally agree with this. Yet, what two consenting members of the same sex do in the privacy of their own homes is, according to what we know about Palin and her record, very much not a family mater and one that instead should be controlled through legislation - even to the point that health benefits could be denied and taken away.
The hypocrisy takes my breath away.
Posted by: JoJo | September 1, 2008 6:14 PM
I don't care what politicians and their families do in their personal time, as long as it isn't illegal. I've never been unfaithful to my wife but I don't care if Bill Clinton got a hummer or not. I do care about him lying about it in a sworn disposition. I'm straight but I don't care if Larry Craig goes trawling in public toilets. I do care about him trying to withdraw a guilty plea for solicitation (I also care that he's a hypocrite concerning gays).
In the same way, I don't care if Palin's kid is her son or grandson. I certainly don't care if her daughter is going to be a teenage mother. I do care that Palin supports teaching abstinence only sex ed in public schools and is anti-abortion.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 6:21 PM
So sex before marriage is wrong except when it's your own daughter and it's all good because it's a shotgun wedding? Bah, more hypocrisy.
Though Obama is right tbh. The media focusing on her daughter should be off-limits. Regardless of how much a hypocrite Palin is...
Posted by: mayhempix | September 1, 2008 6:21 PM
Posted by: NickG | September 1, 2008 5:48 PM
Ermm... what if Bristol's lover does not want to get married?
"Her mom is a lifetime NRA member and hunts moose. I would be buying a ring and I'm gay."
I posted this on a previous thread ...
I wonder how the boy felt after seeing Sara shooting an automatic rifle on TV? I can just see him thinking, "If Cheney got away with it..." No more hunting trips with the Palin family for him.
Posted by: mayhempix | September 1, 2008 6:23 PM
CNN has just broke the baby story at the GOP convention...
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | September 1, 2008 6:24 PM
I personally long for the day when candidates' spouses, children, and other relatives are considered 100% irrelevant to political campaigns.
Posted by: Anon | September 1, 2008 6:26 PM
Soo, America is going to have a smarter president for a change? I'm feeling more positive about this president now! Families etc. are definitely off-limits!
Bright future? Who knows now!
Posted by: mayhempix | September 1, 2008 6:28 PM
quote from a delegate from Alaska interviewed on CNN:
"...teach abstinence, but hey, life happens..."
Posted by: justawriter | September 1, 2008 6:30 PM
Well, for one thing it extends a courtesy that McCain himself was unwilling to abide by and will energize the concern trolls in the party to birddog other Democrats instead of talking about failed sex ed and retrograde reproductive rights policies.
Posted by: Luke | September 1, 2008 6:30 PM
86: Virgin birth?
Posted by: Cynthia | September 1, 2008 6:32 PM
This comment on Hullabaloo made me laugh:
"This new baby drama just makes the Presidency look like a Jerry Springer show.";^)
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 6:34 PM
mayhempix quoting a delegate on CNN:
There's always something I've wondered about, how exactly do they teach kids abstinence?
TEACHER: Alright kids, don't have sex until married. That's your sex-ed class for the rest of your life.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | September 1, 2008 6:37 PM
If the daughter is a young version of her hot mama.... Well, then...
I can sure understand what happened!
Posted by: imflyboy | September 1, 2008 6:48 PM
They'll be off limit when candidates quit making private decisions public poilicy
Posted by: xander | September 1, 2008 6:49 PM
NickG wrote:
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she decided to keep the child rather than give it up for adoption? I admit that, in the context of the quote you provide, this seems unlikely. However, it is possible, I suppose.
xander
Posted by: MissAgentGirl | September 1, 2008 6:55 PM
Her daughters pregnancy doesn't bother me and it shouldn't even be an issue. Unfortunately the Republicans and their conservative agenda have made it an issue by trying to substitute the Bible for the Constitution and legislating religious morality. Our sexually shamed culture here in the US is a direct result of this overbearing religious mentality.
Sorry, but I find this situation with Palin's daughter difficult to overlook coming from a candidate who wants YOU to believe they lead by example.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | September 1, 2008 6:57 PM
The teen pregnancy issue is minor compared to the trooper probe. In any case, choosing Palin as a VP running mate was a blunder of major proportions. Choosing a woman for a running mate would have been a brilliant move -- if he had chosen the right woman. Instead he choose the type of woman most likely to be rejected by disgrunted Clinton supporters.
Looks like McCain has made another bad decision. Why would someone choose a running mate with two elephants in the room? It doesn't really matter how much experience you have if your experience is a trail of bad decisions.
Obama could have blundered and picked Edwards for VP -- but he didn't.
On a personal note, my daughter had her first child at 17. While her pregnancy appeared to be a tragic turn of events in her life at first, I can't tell you how much happiness this child brought to her and my family. I myself was born to teen parents (15 and 17). No big deal.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 1, 2008 7:00 PM
I'm still not convinced that Palin is telling the truth about baby Trigg even now.
I believe that there are still many unanswered questions regarding the maternity of the baby.
As I just posted on Ed Brayton's website 'Dispatches From the Culture Wars':
The other line of evidence which continues to make the issue of Sarah Palin's maternity look suspicious, is that there is no record of the baby being born at the hospital on the supposed day of delivery, on the hospital's website.
It may be fraud to falsify a birth certificate, but it's not fraud to omit having the birth recorded on the hospital's website.
Why is the child's birth is NOT recorded, when others from the same day are?
Could it be that had the hospital published it, then they would be legally obliged to name the real mother?
I'm afraid that I still smell a rat.
Here is the link to the hospital's records of relevent day's births. Note that Palin's delivery is conspicuously absent.
http://www.matsuregional.com/nursery/show_day.php?month=04&year=2008&day=18
And as for all this nonsense about Palin's family affairs being a private matter, I'm afraid that her family forfeited the right to privacy when Sarah accepted the vice-presidential nomination, while running on a platform of 'family values', compulsory anti-abortion laws, and abstinence-only sex education.
So what if her daughter 'chose' not to terminate her pregnancy? (I fail to see that she would have been given much option anyway), and what if she HAD chosen to do so, and had been legally prevented from doing so by legislation which her own mother had helped put into place?
What would happen to teenagers from poor families who might not be able to afford to financially assist their daughters who find themselves in a similar situation, or worse?
What would happen to financially disadvantaged adult mothers who could not afford the lifelong emotional and financial committment which is required to adequately raise a mentally disabled child?
What rank hypocrisy and callous disregard for the welfare of others who are less fortunate than herself, are being displayed here? And this passes for legitimate political discourse in America?
If Palin has an ounce of human dignity or decency, then she should either decline her nomination, or change her official stance on these issues.
If the American public has an ounce of common sense, then they should be demanding that Palin come clean, and provide some solid evidence that the baby Trig is really her child, and not her daughter's. I fear that the American public are still being taken for suckers with Palin's announcement that her daughter is five months pregnant.
I'm afraid that this whole affair stinks to high heaven of a botched cover up.
Posted by: Katkinkate | September 1, 2008 7:03 PM
Posted by: Jesse @ 13
"......Sarah Palin is announcing that her daughter WILL be marrying the father. Is this some sort of return to arranged marriages? The girl is only 17!! If gay marriage somehow dilutes the sanctity of marriage, what's with marrying people far to young to know what marriage even means? Anyone know the divorce rate of marriages-at-17?"
That's probably the next issue once the abortion/ contraception issue has been 'won'. They'll be pushing to make divorces harder to get.
Posted by: RobinSV | September 1, 2008 7:07 PM
I agree PZ, but how can we sit quietly when the people who are arguing that a girl's CHOICE to take her pregnancy to term is a PRIVATE matter, are the very same people who castigate the SCTUS for making their decision on Roe v Wade on basis of PRIVACY?
The personal life of the underage daughter of a political candidate should be off limits, but the typical, moralizing "do as I say, no as I do" hypocrisy of the religious/republican right should not. I'm just not sure how to draw a line between the two this time...
Posted by: John | September 1, 2008 7:10 PM
Thanks PZ, doesn't seem your readers have as much sense & decency as you do.
Anyway, this babygate fervor distracts from all the real issues and makes rank&file Dems look like tabloid reading trash, so maybe its not all bad.
Soon enough, both parties will have been ultimately refuted in a relatively short span of time.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 7:11 PM
I find it an odd tactic by the republican party.
"Look, Trigg can't be Bristol's kid. Bristol is 5 months pregnant and Trig was born 4 months ago. So there!"
While I'm trying my best not to buy into this conspiracy theory based on anecdotal evidence... there's something about this that seems so wrong. Maybe I'm just looking to hate a creationist hypocrite a little too much
Posted by: Pablo | September 1, 2008 7:14 PM
Because "her principles" involve sticking her nose into other people's private business. For Palin, it is not acceptable for a pregnant woman to say, "This a private matter to me, and please respect my right to make my own decision and keep out of it." But now that her daughter is making her a laughingstock, her response is, "This is a private matter, so keep out of it."
Posted by: robbrown | September 1, 2008 7:18 PM
As someone thoroughly on the pro-choice and anti-McCain/Palin side, I must still take issue with that crazy statement. I see no hypocrisy at all. (like religion, partisanship seems to drain all logic and rationality from people.)
First of all, it as an aide to McCain pointing out that she made the "right choice". She herself never referred to it as a "choice".
Secondly, it IS a choice, since abortion is legal today. And she DID make the choice that is consistant with what she hopes to be law. Calling that hypocritical is just wrong.
And EVEN SO, it is not always hypocritical to wish for a rule while not following the currently-non-existing rule. For instance, I might think that taxes should be raised. However, that does not make me a hypocrite if I only pay the amount of taxes required by the current law, rather than voluntarily paying more.
The idea of rules and laws are "I'll agree to this constraint on my behavior IF everyone else accepts the same constraint on their behavior". Given that the law is not in place, no one should be expected to follow it, not even those supporting the law. ( http://karmatics.com/docs/collective-self-interest-fallacy.html )
Posted by: BobC | September 1, 2008 7:23 PM
Isn't it a wonderful thing to become a grandmother? Shouldn't people be congratulating Palin?
Palin is a creationist lunatic so I wouldn't congratulate her for anything, but I don't see how her becoming a grandmother could possibly be a bad thing, no matter wrong her political views are, or how insane her religious beliefs are.
Posted by: Julian | September 1, 2008 7:23 PM
I wonder how many Republican voters this will really scare off. They seem to have a remarkable ability to forgive or ignore in their own politicians what they explode apoplectically about in a Democrat. Imagine what the reaction would have been if Chelsea got knocked up in Clinton's last few years. Hell, they'd probably have accused him of being the father, and would have tried to use their power in Congress to force a paternity test from him, among other things.
Having said that, let's not forget that we're the good guys. I'm typically one of those people who argues for the need among Democrats to play hardball, but going to town trashing her in the national spotlight for doing what parents have done for generations? That's too low for us. We're liberals, and whether we're Democrats or Libertarians or Greens or Anarchists, we're too good to use that sort of Republican tactic.
Besides, if we just keep pointing out how ineffective abstinence-ed is, nobody will forget it anyway :).
Posted by: robbrown | September 1, 2008 7:25 PM
While I don't think that a fetus is worthy of protection as a human, I can accept that other people don't agree. Therefore, abortion is not private business, it is, to them, killing a human, which makes it not private anymore than someone killing their 2 year old child is.Let me be clear, I'm not arguing the pro-life side (I'm distinctly pro-Roe v Wade).
However, I am pro-logic, and your logic is weak.
Posted by: John Robie | September 1, 2008 7:33 PM
Sure we're the good guys, but being the good guys is how we lose. In a perfect world, this would not be a matter for political attacks. But in the world we live in I say hit them hard, hit them below the belt, and keep hitting them until sometime after the swearing in ceremony.
I'll feel bad for Palin's daughter while I'm doing it, but I'll be happy that her daughter's daughter will still have the right to an abortion when her mother's and grandmother's idiocy lands her in the same position 17 years from now.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 7:34 PM
And that's why the debate will never be resolved. We all agree than infanticide is wrong (except in the case of Babylonian infants [ps. 137:9]), there is not going to be an agreement on when we define as infanticide starting. For those who believe life begins at conception; how can that ever be compromised to allow for a fluent society?Posted by: raven | September 1, 2008 7:35 PM
Obama can tell people all he wants to ignore the baby, pregnant teen, and boy with a shotgun pointed at him behind the curtain all he wants. He should. And take the high road.
The media and the public will be all over this no matter what he says. This is just a Britney meets politics, Jerry Springer soap opera and no one can look away even if they try. I suspect this fascination with other peoples messy lives dates back to our social primate forebearers. It does seem to be universal in human cultures.
Posted by: NickG | September 1, 2008 7:55 PM
Xander @93
I don't doubt that she may have chosen to keep the baby. What amazes me is not that Bristol chose to keep her pregnancy rather than have a quiet abortion, but that her parents are proud that she made the decision not to have an abortion when they both feel that abortion is not a choice that any woman should be able to make.
Palin said: "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby".
So either their daughter had no choice and Palin is a bald faced liar in her statement. Or her daughter did really have a choice and she is a supreme hypocrite. She's saying her daughter should have a choice. But if my niece is raped and becomes pregnant, unlike Bristol Palin she should not be able to choose an abortion.
Posted by: Interrobang | September 1, 2008 7:58 PM
As Tristero and other commenters said, "It's not the pregnancy, it's the hypocrisy, stupid."
Also, do I believe that the daughter of a highly-politically-connected, highly visible, fundamentalist Christian pro-forced-birth whackaloon made an uncoerced choice not to have an abortion? Not on your tintype. And it's the coercion angle that's getting to me. I can't say for absolutely sure, but as far as I can tell, there is pretty much no way Bristol Palin made a free decision to carry her pregnancy to term, and I think that is every bit as bad, if not worse, than if her mother had browbeat her for days with her political connections, celebrity, and ideology before dragging her to an abortion clinic. (At least if her mother had browbeat her into having an abortion, Bristol Palin wouldn't be risking pregnancy and/or delivery complications.)
And let me tell you, as the offspring of a 17 year old mother who couldn't have chosen to have an abortion if she'd wanted to (because they weren't legal or available where and when I was born), that uncoerced choice makes me really twitchy.
Posted by: N.K. | September 1, 2008 8:00 PM
Maybe if her mom had supported better policies on sex education, this wouldn't have happened.
...
No, I'm joking. Bristol should not be an issue and isn't relevant. There are better things to criticize Sarah Palin for.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 8:04 PM
NickG, Bristol DOES have the choice. If it's legal to have an abortion, she makes the choice regardless of the outcome. You can't be a hypocrite for making a choice when you have to make one. She chose what would be the same as if there was no choice, so there is no hypocrisy there at all.
It's hypocrisy for Palin to teach that sex before marriage is wrong while supporting her daughter's choice to get knocked up, but it's not hypocrisy for a pro-life person to keep the pregnancy.
Posted by: clinteas | September 1, 2008 8:05 PM
Disagree with Obama.
This is a policy issue.Its the policy that Palin wants american parents to teach their children,that you are meant to be abstinent before marriage,and if you cant,because youre human and have hormones,then you will have that child and be forcefully married to the father.
Not working.Not in society in general,not even in Palins family.And I think thats worth pointing out.
Posted by: daveb | September 1, 2008 8:08 PM
I love how many of you seem to think that Republicans have a monopoly on sleaze. Uh, have you been listening to yourselves since Palin was selected? The criticism I'm hearing the most from liberals is, essentially, that Palin should get back in the kitchen to take care of her babies, because good mommies can't have important jobs. Or how Sarah Palin irresponsibly put her daughter in the spotlight. Yeah, how dare Sarah not hide her daughter in shame; how dare she not have a perfect family in the first place? And I loved the vicious rumors that Sarah Palin was stealing her daughter's baby to save her own political career.
Politics has always been a dirty game, no matter who's playing it.
Posted by: S.Scott | September 1, 2008 8:12 PM
@ 113 - Sex Ed
Posted by: NickG | September 1, 2008 8:16 PM
Kel, perhaps I stated it imperfectly, but I don't think Bristol is a hypocrite. Her mother is. If her mother was not a hypocrite she would not even speak of it as a choice... you know: Its a child, not a choice. Remember that bumper sticker, Sarah?
The sad part is that she (Sarah) won't ever have adequate introspection to choke on those words.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 1, 2008 8:17 PM
"The criticism I'm hearing the most from liberals is, essentially, that Palin should get back in the kitchen to take care of her babies, because good mommies can't have important jobs."
Liar.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 8:20 PM
Oh, fair enough NickG. I see where you are coming from now. Though I still feel that the choice is there implicitly so it doesn't automatically make you a hypocrite for talking about it. It depends on whether there was an explicit rejection of the procedure or not.
But I guess it's all a game of semantics from here :P
Also, being in Australia, I really haven't had to deal with anyone pro-life. Apparently there are protests here at a clinic in my city every friday. But I have a job so, you know. Couldn't care less.
Posted by: Jesse | September 1, 2008 8:29 PM
>Politics has always been a dirty game, no matter who's playing it.
Some play it a hell of a lot dirtier.
Remember, the people who circulated rumors about McCain's "black baby" weren't liberals.
Posted by: daveb | September 1, 2008 8:29 PM
Hey Rey, the truth hurts, don't it? What do you think people in this very thread are saying about Palin's skills as a mother? Would they be saying the same thing about her husband's skills as a father if he were running? You know damn well they wouldn't.
And shut about Palin flying after her amniotic leak. She was cleared to fly by her doctor. Or is a woman's right to medical privacy no longer a part of the progressive agenda?
I do have to give Obama credit, though, for rising above the naked contempt for women his supporters have shown.
Posted by: Jesse | September 1, 2008 8:30 PM
daveb, chill the fuck out.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2008 8:30 PM
The Theothuglican party is the party of endless sleaze. You are yet another in an endless parade of such. You are flat out lying. No one said that.
What was said was that it is ironic for Palin to advocate stupid policies based on cult religious grounds that are proven not to work even when her 17 year old daughter gets bitten by them.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 8:35 PM
What are you talking about? If it were Mr. Palin running on an abstinence platform and his daughter got pregnant, you could bet your life that the media would be all over it. Just as they have been on every politician or preacher who has run a campaign of homophobia and intolerance who turned out to be engaged in homosexual acts. Just as they have been on politicians who run a pro-family agenda who get caught cheating.The media and the population loves a good hypocrite, regardless of gender. Trying to turn it into a gender issue is misogynistic in itself.
Posted by: Jesse | September 1, 2008 8:37 PM
Kel
>Trying to turn it into a gender issue is misogynistic in itself.
Thanks for pointing this out. Need to be said.
Posted by: rimpal | September 1, 2008 8:40 PM
On one side we have McWhine who calls his wife names in ublic, trashes Chelsea Clinton, and sucks up to Bush after they slime Bridget. OTOH we have Obama who says politician's families and children are off limits and that he will fire anyone on his staff who acts otherwise. And we still have doubts? We can't get any better than Obama! Way to go!
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 1, 2008 8:44 PM
"What do you think people in this very thread are saying about Palin's skills as a mother? "
Way to shift the goalposts. Plenty of folks have said that she's not the best mother. But they didn't say that she should not run for VP because she is A mother, like you insinuated:
"The criticism I'm hearing the most from liberals is, essentially, that Palin should get back in the kitchen to take care of her babies, because good mommies can't have important jobs."
So which is it? Are we saying she shouldn't have an important job because she's a "good mommie", or because she's a "bad mommie"?
Or maybe is it because her daughter is an object lesson in how her views on sex education are wrong?
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 1, 2008 8:56 PM
"The criticism I'm hearing the most from liberals is, essentially, that Palin should get back in the kitchen to take care of her babies, because good mommies can't have important jobs."
Please provide some evidence.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2008 9:00 PM
Or maybe is it because her daughter is an object lesson in how her views on sex education are wrong?
A 17 year old girl should never be used as an object lesson and have her sexual history paraded in front of the nation, period. Seriously. There are ways of making the point that abstinence-only education doesn't work without trashing a girl who has nothing to do with her mother's policies. This is honestly as revolting as Rush calling Chelsea a dog. Bristol Palin does not exist to be an object lesson for the left.
Posted by: Donovan | September 1, 2008 9:04 PM
Ha. My mother is a secular hippy (though she is a theist) and she was 20 and married when she had my oldest sister. She's also still married to our father nearly 40 years later.
She also claims Catholocism, but instists on a woman's right to choose. She hates abortions, but understands the need and respects the difficult decision. She raised me to see abortion as something to be solved by better prenatal care and more education about birth control methods.
Despite raising a secular family, all of her grandchildren were also born to married parents, all of whom are still married today.
We never learned to look to the bible for help with this.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 9:12 PM
Rey Fox wrote:
And one test of our fairness would be to ask yourself: Would I be making an issue of it if a male candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter saying he was a bad father? Well, considering I had to make rude comments about how Mitt treated his dog I probably would.
However, I don't think we can be completely certain that she is a bad mother. I'm waiting to learn more. And even if she were a great mother, I still wouldn't vote for her. So, the whole thing is just gossipy and irrelevant to the politics. ... but I still want to know.
Posted by: Ghost of Minnesota | September 1, 2008 9:16 PM
Exactly. I've seen no evidence that she's a bad mother by my standards.But considering her position on conservative Christian abstinence-only moral values, she appears to be a bad mother by her own standards.
Posted by: Carlie | September 1, 2008 9:20 PM
I don't care about how bad of a mother she is any more than I cared about who Bill Clinton was getting blowjobs from. All I care about is how bad of a Vice-President she'd be.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT | September 1, 2008 9:22 PM
exactly
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2008 9:24 PM
Yo Carlie. Agreed. Mr. stud muffin who knocked up the governor's daughter doesn't need this either. These are still children, no matter what they are biologically capable of, legally and psychologically. For the two kids this is probably a nightmare.
But you are missing whose fault it is that Britney from the North is now front page news. Palin had to know as soon as she became a VP nominee that it would be news. We all make choices and she made this one for her daughter and sort of son in law.
The media and the public devour a constant stream of celebrity mishaps. This is human nature, gossip. Putting a story out like this and then expecting people to ignore it is like putting a hotdog in the dog's dish and telling him he can't have it. Not going to happen.
The genie is out of the bottle on this one and no one is going to be able to put it back in.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 9:26 PM
Ghost of Minnesota wrote:
Why do dumb policy decisions commit her to a different style of parenting? We still don't know that the girl got pregnant because she didn't know about safe-sex. She seems old enough to have figured out about condoms without being given a class in it. We live in age when there are condom commercials on TV.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 9:34 PM
Yet it seems that people in areas where there is only abstinence-only education, it correlates with a higher teen pragnancy rate.It's not only ignorance of the product, there is also deliberate misinformation about the product being put out there. Not to mention that a lot of sex is spontaenous, so people who want to keep abstinent don't stay prepared by carrying around condoms. Remember it's a sin to even think about lust so being prepared for the worst is not an option for them.
It's funny that having a good sex education system seems to correlate with lower teen pregnancy and lower abortion. If the conservatives would get off their idealist arses and actually look for pragmatic solutions, then there may be something to giving people a better education and helping them be informed enough to make decisions. But in a society where violence on TV must mean violence in the streets, pornography causes rape, and video games are responsible for school shootings; I don't think many people would actually look for the difference between casual and causal links.
Posted by: Bubba Sixpack | September 1, 2008 9:40 PM
I think one thing should be pointed out about Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant:
that the religious right do not have a lock on preventing teen sex, nor teen pregnancies.
This is the only reason people follow them - they think the religious right's techniques actually work. And for the religious right to claim superiority in this or any other "moral" matter is ludicrous.
Posted by: Patricia | September 1, 2008 9:48 PM
Another example of a good true christian being a hypocrite. How is she going to explain to the newest little one that according to the bibull all bastards go to hell to the 10th generation? Surely they should have stoned Bristol to death by now, and made the guilty male pay 30 shekels of silver. Then the whole thing would be correctly ended and Palin could go back to the kitchen.
McSame is damned for naming a woman to rule over men. This looks like a Monty Python script.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 1, 2008 9:55 PM
daveb wrote:
-"And shut about Palin flying after her amniotic leak. She was cleared to fly by her doctor. Or is a woman's right to medical privacy no longer a part of the progressive agenda?"
'Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.
"I said I am going to stay for the day. I have a speech I was determined to give," Palin said. She gave the luncheon keynote address for the energy conference.
Palin kept in close contact with Baldwin-Johnson. The contractions slowed to one or two an hour, "which is not active labor," the doctor said.'
"Things were already settling down when she talked to me," Baldwin-Johnson said.
Palin did not ask for a medical OK to fly, the doctor said.'
- Anchorage Daily News
http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html
So Palin's doctor DIDN'T give her medical clearance to fly!
I don't blame her doctor for denying this, because it could have been a malpractice suit just waiting to happen.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 9:55 PM
Kel wrote:
Yea, I've actually heard that before, however, I was trying to get at something else: How many of those girls who get pregnant have a boyfriend ready to marry them? Don't most of them wind up as single mothers? Seems to me that this one might not be a spontaneous accident... and I'm repeating myself, I said this in post #52
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 1, 2008 9:56 PM
Can you point to even one example of this?
Posted by: natural cynic | September 1, 2008 10:02 PM
140: How many of those girls who get pregnant have a boyfriend ready to marry them? Don't most of them wind up as single mothers? Seems to me that this one might not be a spontaneous accident...
Most of them are accidents. The abortion rates in those states is also higher.
Posted by: Lynnai | September 1, 2008 10:05 PM
My problem with it is simmilar and yet not entirely the same.
Yes it shold not be an issue at all. She made it an issue by lieing about it. But more to the point she mad an issue about it by lieing BADLY about it.
Think cynically for a moment, politics is if not a game of lieing then at the very least a game of putting a good face on things, such as trade agreements and international negotiations. You want someone who can sit down to dinner anywhere in the world and be able to say polite things about the entree and look like they really mean it.
If she thinks people will believe she's the one who is preggers while her daughter is the one blowing up like a ballon I really don't think she's capable of that. That's the politcal equivellent of not being able to tie your own shoes even with velcro!
Posted by: DingoDave | September 1, 2008 10:14 PM
Norman Doering wrote:
-"Why do dumb policy decisions commit her to a different style of parenting? We still don't know that the girl got pregnant because she didn't know about safe-sex. She seems old enough to have figured out about condoms without being given a class in it."
Norman, do you for one minute think that Sarah Palin would have advised her daughter to keep some condoms on hand, just in case, or to use any other form of contraception for that matter?
Given her mother's VERY public stance on the matter, what do you think would have happened to Bristol if she had been caught with contraceptives in her posession, or if it had become known in her local community that she had been purchasing them for herself?
It's no wonder she wasn't in a position to take adequate precautions against becoming pregnant.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 10:21 PM
Having a steady boyfriend does not make it any less of an accident. I'd actually be surprised if most of these girls who got didn't have a steady boyfriend tbh. Spontaenous sex doesn't imply promiscurity in any way, and I would expect those who do engage in sex who were otherwise abstinent to only break with someone they were head over heals for.Single mum would seem to correlate more with promiscurity and casual relationships rather than serious ones.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 10:25 PM
Exactly. For a religion that teaches that even thinking about sex is a sin, how many of them would ever be prepared just in case it does happen? Buying contraceptives would be a sin in itself as it's preparing for the event of sex. And since they are abstinent, there is no need at all because there will be no event of sex.Ahh, naïvity. So cute, so irresponsible.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 10:31 PM
natural cynic wrote:
I've heard that statistic before, but that still doesn't mean that's how Palin's daughter got pregnant.
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 10:42 PM
Of course it doesn't mean that at all. We don't know how Palin's daughter got pregnant (apart from the sex part), we can only make educated guesses based on the circumstances that are presented. Here you have a child of a conservative family and a staunch advocate of abstinence-only education. She belongs to one of the more extreme churches (assemblies of God), she's underage, but the father is sticking around.Now this kind of story is dime a dozen in some parts of the world. So we can make links to them, you are right; ultimately we don't know and this is just conjecture.
So while we are ultimately uncertain, it does seem to correlate with a common pattern of behaviour.
Posted by: raven | September 1, 2008 10:48 PM
We will never really know. Like it is anyone's business.
Irrelevant. This is a 16 or 17 year old kid A child. Legally she can't buy cigarettes, drink, or get married in most states. A minor.
There is a reason why children aren't considered adults and aren't given adult privileges. Things that make perfect sense to kids frequently strike adults, including themselves when they grow up as somewhere between unwise and insane. We've all been there. Most seem to have forgotten it by now.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 10:49 PM
DingoDave wrote:
I have no idea how fundies raise their kids. You seem to either know a lot more about it than I do -- or you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions.
I do assume that once Sarah knew that her daughter was going steady that she would have some sort of talk with her. Not about using protection, but something that implied such.
Do you really know what fundies teach their kids about sex?
Posted by: Jams | September 1, 2008 10:51 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with PZ. It's exactly the way I felt about Obama's policy to "Expand Hate Crimes Statutes" along side his membership (sorry, previous membership) in a hate-group. It's no wonder he's so eager to play down hypocrisy in one's personal life.
Posted by: Dave | September 1, 2008 10:52 PM
You know, I've been pondering this for a while and I totally disagree w/ PZ.
Why should we lay off the kid? She's an adult. You can tell because she is having a baby.
Why is it OK to trash someone's religious beliefs but not their general stupidity?
Just because this doesn't have anything to do with religion, why is this topic all of a sudden "VooDoo" ?
Too bad for her ... she's an adult ... welcome to the real world.
Posted by: Patricia | September 1, 2008 10:55 PM
Bristols father has the choice of what to do in this situation.
Exodus 23:16 - And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
17 - If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
If the kid marries her, honor and the bible are observed. If he pays the dad, same thing. Course the poor baby will have to grow up knowing that it is going to hell to the 10th generation for being a bastard. Gawd is love. :)
Posted by: Jesse | September 1, 2008 11:12 PM
Alright, I'm coming to think it's a big mistake for liberals not to be taking strong shots at Sarah Palin over this.
From what I'm reading, the Evangelicals are LOVING this because it "reinforces the fact that this family lives its pro-life values". Full stop. Needlessly complicating, maybe destroying the lives of two kids and a newborn is a GOOD thing!??
There is some moral outrage to be had here, and we should be loud about it. This is not "family values", this is self-destructive behavior. We should be shouting about how, if we all lived our lives like Sarah Palin, our country would come apart.
Posted by: NickG | September 1, 2008 11:22 PM
raven @149
Actually now in most places in the US she is considered an emancipated minor. For example, where I practice a 14 year old girl who is 5 weeks pregnant can consent to any and all medical care (whether or not its related to the pregnancy) while a 17 year and 364 day college student who is putting herself through school must still get mommy or daddy's permission for me to suture her and give her a tetanus shot.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2008 11:23 PM
I don't think we should be attacking the children of politicians. We should attack their policies and their judgement. It's simple. Abstinence only sex education is idiotic and reckless. Palin supports it. Dogma instead of common sense.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 1, 2008 11:25 PM
Except in one area. Nepotism. That should always be on the table.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 1, 2008 11:26 PM
Norman Doering wrote:
-"I have no idea how fundies raise their kids. You seem to either know a lot more about it than I do -- or you're making a hell of a lot of assumptions."
I do know how fundies raise their kids, because I was raised in a fundie (Baptist) household.
-"I do assume that once Sarah knew that her daughter was going steady that she would have some sort of talk with her. Not about using protection, but something that implied such."
How do you know that she was going steady with anyone?
And considering that Sarah is a public and staunch advocate of abstinence only sex education, you can probably have a guess about what sort of talk, if any, she would have had with her daughter.
-"Do you really know what fundies teach their kids about sex?"
Yes. Don't have any until you're married.
But speaking from experience I know that it doesn't work, because I even had sex with our minister's daughter on a couple of occasions while I was a teenager and still attending my family's local church.
Luckily for me I ignored my elder's advice and used contraception, or else I also could have been looking down the barrel of a shotgun wedding, just like these poor kids appear to be.
Posted by: Jesse | September 1, 2008 11:27 PM
We don't attack the kids. We attack the parents who are raising their kids to emulate their self-destructive behavior.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 1, 2008 11:38 PM
Kel wrote:
Sure, that story correlates with a common pattern of behavior, up to a point, but becoming a VP doesn't. Not many people become VPs, they're an incredibly small and statistically improbable minority. Do you know any personally? Beauty contestant winners are also a statistically insignificant minority measured against the whole population.
That's why we gossip about them.
People said that George Bush seemed like the kind of guy you could have a beer with, but that was a bit of an act.
Endorsing a policy because you can get votes isn't the same thing as actually believing it's a good thing.
Posted by: shane | September 1, 2008 11:53 PM
What I want to know is why Palin named her daughter after a bleak industrial port in England? Bristol also means, rather sexily, "meeting place by the bridge".
Posted by: Kel | September 1, 2008 11:54 PM
I agree, a VP candidate is not a common occurrence. And yes, that does make the story. Just as it was a story about Obama's half-brother living off less than $1 a day in Kenya. Being in a position of power, whether through politics or celebrity, puts you into a position of intense scrutiny.Would people have made such a big deal out of Ted Haggard if he weren't such a homophobe? Would they have made a big deal out of Edwards if he weren't campaigning on a family values platform? Yes, it doesn't help to be in a position of power to keep the family secrets buried. But that doesn't excuse hypocritical behaviour.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | September 2, 2008 12:07 AM
Nobody on the planet is trying to give the teenager a hard time. We are simply pointing out
a. The rampant hypocrisy of Governor Palin in regards to sex education and abortion. c.f. bragging about her daughter's supposedly free choice and also her own free choice about her own pregnancy even though she is on the record as opposing the right of any woman to have a choice in such situations.
b. The way in which the whole affair points out the stupidity of abstinence only sex education.
c. The willingness of Palin to mislead the public--she only fessed up to the family problem because of pressure from Daily Kos and a few other journalists. She obviously planned to keep her daughter's pregnancy quiet until after the election.
d. The political cynicism of McCain in making a rash and spasmodic decision about a running mate for temporary political advantage.
e. The remarkable ineptitude shown by McCain and his staff in handling the whole affair.
f. The way in which picking Palin reflects McCain's subservience to the radical Christian right. Far from being a soaring eagle, he is only a bird in a gilded cage.
For these and many other reasons, the Palin problem is not going to go away, nor should it. But, once again, nobody, except Mrs Palin, of course, is guilty of willfully putting a pregnant teenager through the wringer.
Posted by: Rick T | September 2, 2008 12:07 AM
Norman asked,
"Do you really know what fundies teach their kids about sex?"
Yes. They talk about it as little as possible. They use scare tactics when the subject comes up, both as it relates to the sex act and as it relates to eternal damnation. They teach you to pray a lot for the strength to resist. That's the crap that passes for sex education.
I was raised in the A of G and this was my personal experience. I doubt that it has changed much since I left the faith. I have heard of some very wacky shit like raising of the dead other miracles that are reported to have happened by a certain "prophet" and his raising up of a Joel's army to fight for Jesus.
Another quick example. I've heard it said that to plan to have sex out of wedlock is a worse sin than accidentally having sex due to shear passion and one's inability to resist it. Lesson, don't use birth control. It will only make it worse for your immortal soul.
I agree with Dingo Dave. There is more that will come out about this story. We are dealing with Rove here. He loves to obfuscate and keep the real issues off the table. It is smart of Obama to keep his eye on the goal and not take what seems to be low hanging fruit.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 12:21 AM
DingoDave wrote:
What you were saying about Palin not telling her daughter about condoms and birth control, about punishing her daughter if she found them - your parents were like that?
I use to think my parents were bad, now I'm beginning to appreciate them. My parents just gave me a book which, in retrospect seems comical now, but it was good enough to keep me from making the most stupid mistakes. It covered more material than I cared about at the time.
Posted by: raven | September 2, 2008 12:26 AM
Well I suppose that is one biblical way of dealing with it. Marry her or pay up.
Better than Deuteronomy. Disobedient children are supposed to be stoned to death at the city gates. Or Exodus, where Dad can sell her as a sex slave.
Posted by: MikeM | September 2, 2008 12:31 AM
I confess to mixed feelings here...
Obama is absolutely right; don't go after the family.
But Palin is dumb because she can be 100% certain that's exactly what the press will do. Does not matter what Obama says. Sad.
That said, I believe Palin is done here. We've had Veep candidates go down in flames because they'd had counseling in the past... Just think it over.
So this is another nice little flameout for McCain, so part of me is rejoicing. Which sounds tacky. Oh well. Can you imagine the field day Fox would be having if this was one of Biden's daughters??
We know one thing for sure now: It will not be VP Palin.
That's life.
Posted by: Jesse | September 2, 2008 12:33 AM
Norman,
My Lutheran parents probably would have thrown me out of the house if they found me with condoms at 17.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 2, 2008 12:43 AM
Norman Doering wrote:
-"What you were saying about Palin not telling her daughter about condoms and birth control, about punishing her daughter if she found them - your parents were like that?"
Yes. And I'm a bloke. Imagine what would have happened if I had been a girl?
Everything I ever learned about birth control came from my own research.
My parents once found some unused condoms and a pair of my girlfriends knickers in my room one day, and went absolutely apeshit. They even rang my girlfriend's parents and got her into trouble as well. (my girlfriend at the time wasn't the minister's daughter thank goodness, or I probably would have been banned from attending that particular church ever again) : )
Trust me, abstinence only sex education is not a sound principle to be teaching to hormone ravaged teenagers. It's simply a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 2, 2008 12:50 AM
What Jim Harrison said.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 2, 2008 1:01 AM
Rey Fox wrote:
-"What Jim Harrison said."
I'll second that.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 1:02 AM
DingoDave wrote:
I imagine "The Virgin Suicides" by Sofia Coppola.
Did you see that film? Were your parents like that?
Posted by: NickG | September 2, 2008 1:30 AM
Well my mom was an atheist and so I had the anti-evangelical experience. I had condoms freely available. By the time I started having sex, I knew how to properly put a condom on, where to get them, and that they were effective. And I didn't get anyone pregnant (ok, unlikely given that I am queer) but I also started being sexually active in the 1980's and I managed to avoid contracting any STIs.
Go atheist mom. You can't argue with success.
And the one bright side of this... parents who are on the fence may be pushed over into finally talking with their kids about pregnancy and STI prevention.
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | September 2, 2008 2:26 AM
My mom was 40 when she had me. She was a Bell Labs trained mechanical engineer designing satellite components in an era when women were expected to be good little housewives. She taught me how to count cards in Blackjack, and let me watch kung-fu and James Bond films when I was a little kid. By the age of 10 I knew how to seduce sexy Russian double agents and five ways to break a man's spine. :)
She passed away in July, but I'm sure she would have laughed at Ms. Palin before dismissing her completely.
Posted by: ToddSmith | September 2, 2008 2:33 AM
Sure we're the good guys,
*snicker*
Posted by: Soren | September 2, 2008 3:10 AM
to #22 (well I just woke up, so there)
Dick Cheneys daughter was another issue completely. Not only does the republican party run with a anti gay agenda, his daughter was working on Cheneys campaign! She chose to enter the fight, and so she was fair game. Shit or get of the pot as they say.
An antigay agenda helped along by the gay daughter of the VP. That is relevant and is something that is fair game!
Why is it relevant? Because the policy of the GOP actively hurts gay people. Would it be wrong to ask a politician advocating for another war, if she would send her son the soldier, to fight? No. Is it wrong to ask a person at the head of a anti gay party, if he welcomes the discrimination of his child he himself advocates? No.
Posted by: maureen | September 2, 2008 3:16 AM
Of course, if this whole daughter's pregnancy spiel is a put-up job simply to kill the birth-of-Trig saga and if Ma Palin should garner a sympathy vote on the back of it, well, that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?
The truth, of course, would come out and an awful lot of voters would look like idiots!
Posted by: bastion | September 2, 2008 3:56 AM
At #96, DingoDave wrote:
It may be fraud to falsify a birth certificate, but it's not fraud to omit having the birth recorded on the hospital's website.
Why is the child's birth is NOT recorded, when others from the same day are?
Could it be that had the hospital published it, then they would be legally obliged to name the real mother?
I'm afraid that I still smell a rat.
Here is the link to the hospital's records of relevent day's births. Note that Palin's delivery is conspicuously absent.
http://www.matsuregional.com/nursery/show_day.php?month=04&year=2008&day=18
I don't know for certain, but I suspect that HIPAA (the US law governing the privacy of medical information) would prevent the hospital from routinely posting birth notices of all babies born in the hospital and that the hospital needs to get the permission of a baby's mother to post birth info on their web site. No permission, no birth info on the site.
Years ago, it used to be routine for local papers in the US to post birth notices of all births at local hospitals. After HIPAA, these types of notices ceased.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | September 2, 2008 4:14 AM
My parents once found some unused condoms and a pair of my girlfriends knickers in my room one day, and went absolutely apeshit.
It could be worse...
A kid who went to my high school had a somewhat worse experience of parents going berserk. His mother found some marijuana in his room, and when he came home from school that day, he was grabbed by goons who took him to a rehab camp.
The goons and his parents made a pretty big mistake though, by keeping him locked up past his 18th birthday. He was on an "earned home visit", which they let him have because he'd been obsequious enough for a while, and on that visit, he threw his mother's kitchen table through the bay window, escaped, and filed kidnapping charges against his parents and every goon from the camp whose name he could remember.
I never did hear how the litigation played out. I know he also filed a civil suit against the owners of the drug camp.
-jcr
Posted by: Claudia | September 2, 2008 4:18 AM
My nearly two year old isn't allowing me the time to read all the comments today, but I do agree with those who were saying its INSANE that Palin's daughter is marrying her "baby daddy". She (daughter) might be in full support of this marriage given she felt enough to sleep with her boyfriend, but she is entirely not mature enough, particularly in this day and age, to make this big of a decision. And to throw a baby in the mix...well, that's just asking for trouble! I can't believe a mother, in good conscience, would allow this almost certainly bleak future for her child in the name of "family values". I don't want to feel doom and gloom about something none of us can accurately predict and I wish her all the best in the world with her new family...but I married at 18 and it was arguably the stupidest thing I'd ever done. Thankfully, we didn't bring children into the mix. But this young couple marrying, whether forcibly or otherwise, are given a HUGE hill to climb with A LOT of obstacles in their way. This is not responsible decision making, Sarah Palin. If this is how her own daughter's life is being "run"....???
Posted by: thegomezsymbol | September 2, 2008 4:20 AM
From Indexed.blogspot.com
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | September 2, 2008 4:31 AM
Seems to me Palin being a member of a separatist group that wanted to break Alaska out of the USA is a MUCH better story to play up.
Palin hates her country. This is big news. However, it doesn't involve sex, so will it get much play?
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 2, 2008 4:44 AM
Either that or we keep referring to her as "A hideous hybrid of Phyllis Schlafly and Britney Spear" until it catches on with the media.
Posted by: MarkW | September 2, 2008 6:00 AM
Re: Shane @ #161:
"Bristols" is also an outdated UK slang term. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bristols
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | September 2, 2008 6:37 AM
Steve-C said:
Couldn't agree more - the statistics clearly show that abstinence only education is an abysmal failure when it comes to protecting kids from unwanted pregnancy and STDs. The fact that a pro-abstinence VP candidate's daughter has become one of those statistics might be the height of irony but politically it simply is not relevant.
Dave said:
Regardless of the accuracy (or not) of describing a 17 year old as an adult, if you really want to beat up on underage mothers there are plenty to choose from out there (many as a direct result of abstinence only education), why pick on this one? She isn't her mother, she didn't decide to put herself in the public spotlight, her mother did that that for her. This might say a great deal about Ms Palin's parenting skills but she's not trying to get elected to be the nation's mother, she's trying to get elected as the VP which is a completely different job (one for which she is IMHO abysmally underqualified but that's a different argument).
Posted by: Al | September 2, 2008 6:45 AM
@ #161
It's also a contracted rhyming slang:
Bristol City = titty
Posted by: df | September 2, 2008 6:51 AM
@daveb
That stuff is all a matter of public record. It has nothing to do with her medical privacy. She may or may not have gotten clearance from her doctor to fly. Whether she did is irrelevant because she still demonstrated a willingness to put her political career ahead of the interests of her unborn child. She behaved with reckless disregard for both Trig and the other passengers on her return flight.
Posted by: KL | September 2, 2008 7:22 AM
This is a lesson in contrast. On the one hand, cheers to the present, where anyone can make it big, regardless of race or gender. But the way to empower young women is to help them further their education. To do that they need to delay having children until they are out of college and have had a chance to decide what they want out of life. What are the options for a 17 year old mother, especially if, unlike the young lady in question, they don't have a family with the resources to support them? Whose health insurance is covering the gestating mother? Not the young man's, I can assure you. He may not even be able to get such coverage until he has established his career. How about college? Difficult when raising a young child, even for someone much older and with plentiful resources.
The sad thing is that no teenager's private affairs should be a national news item, and no teen should be saddled with the thought, true or otherwise, that her actions may have such an impact on her parent's political career. That's a lot for a child to handle, on top of becoming a parent and wife herself at such a young age. This girl is the same age as my students, and I am thankful none of them is facing this.
Posted by: Sauceress | September 2, 2008 8:53 AM
#96 DingoDave
I'm afraid that this whole affair stinks to high heaven of a botched cover up."
#100 @Kel
Yep! It's easy...DNA test! That way if Palin's daughter were to tragically endure the loss of the baby, rumours wouldn't escalate even further. It seems to be the most obvious way for her to sort out any untruths and save her family from all the innuendo! Doesn't it?
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 2, 2008 9:02 AM
Shane @ #161 (and replies): A city built on Atlantic slave-trade money at that.
Posted by: Sauceress | September 2, 2008 9:02 AM
Either way, I really, really feel for Bristol!
Posted by: Jeff A | September 2, 2008 9:12 AM
Wait wait wait... isn't the problem with this story the supposed implication on what type of "character" (the reason the Republicans think they can win in November, I've heard) Palin comes across as? I thought she was supposed to be the "family values" heavy hitter that McCain seems to be missing in his character...? I'd agree with Obama if the playing field was actually built the way he's describing i - he's giving the American voting public way too much credit. The Republicans aren't running on Obama's supposed "issues", "policies", and "arguments" - they're running on boobs, flag pins, and bible-thumping idiocy. This story gets counted against them!
Isn't this a bigger story considering that everyone (including McCain) knew about this story when offering her the nomination? She just had a Down's Syndrome baby, has 4 other kids, and now says that she'll help "support" her *17* (!) year-old daughter's new baby as well?
When in the hell is she going to find time to even show up for work? I'd be taking a break from politics if that was my personal life, not becoming the second in charge of the free world.
---
So. Stupid. What a terrible pick for V.P. Do people understand that much?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | September 2, 2008 9:16 AM
Doesn't calling your daughter "Bristol" qualify as child abuse? It certainly would in the UK, where "Bristols" is a surviving element of Cockney rhyming slang (there's a well-known football - I mean soccer - team, Bristol City). Still, I guess it's pretty mild stuff compared with "Moon Unit" and "Fifi Trixibelle".
Posted by: Ouchimoo | September 2, 2008 9:23 AM
PZ my mother was also 18 when I was born and my grandmother was around 16. But I have relatives out in the middle of nowhere in farm country that I've made an observation that I'd like to share:
There is this age gap that any female older than me has stuck to 'traditional' methods of marrying at 18 and having children right off the bat and living the old farmstead way. Younger than me they attended school, worked towards getting a career, outside of working in a bar, restaurant or hair salon. I was talking to one of my cousins just 2 years older than me about a wedding that was taking place because a girl got pregnant out of wedlock and she was telling me about how important a wedding was because weddings and childbearing was the only recognition that they will ever receive in their lifetimes. I was pretty appalled. The thing is to me, Palin screams of that's what women should be reduced to.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 9:24 AM
NickG wrote:
My parents were religious but not as stupid and crazy about sex as DingoDave's. The idea of me having sex did not anger them as much as it scared them. So, while I wasn't given condoms I knew where to get them and how to use them.
In fact, the anger utterly baffles me. Where is that coming from? Is that kind of anger really normal enough that you can assume it of Palin just because of her policy endorsements?
When I say my parents gave me a book that I found useful, it's true, but it also included graphic, out of date even at the time, descriptions of syphilis and gonorrhea.
Posted by: SteveM | September 2, 2008 9:38 AM
Would a DNA test really be able to distinguish whether Sarah was the mother or the grandmother? Testing for the father's DNA is only indirect evidence of who the mother is and could possibly open a whole 'nother can o' worms.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 2, 2008 9:39 AM
I don't think McCain could possibly choose a worse VP than Ms. Palin, and that's only after a few days of getting to know the kind of person she is. Just imagine in 50 days !
Right now, the mere thought of having McCain dying whilst in office and seeing Palin becoming President gives me and many the chivers, it's such a risk that I don't think anybody who is not an ultra-conservative religionut is going to vote for this ticket.
With this choice, he's just made sure many people who weren't certain of voting for Obama/Biden will actually go and vote. McCain won't win this election. No way.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 9:46 AM
negentropyeater wrote:
Don't be so sure. I felt that way about Bush running for his second term, how could he win after the mess he'd made?
The polls are still close -- how can that be?
Posted by: tony | September 2, 2008 9:57 AM
Normal Doering@198: The polls are still close -- how can that be?
The polls are still close because the last eight years have conditioned Americans to be fearful and compliant...
I travel every week and the security theater still pisses me off - when I look at my fellow passengers in line - it's like watching sheep head for the dip - but with a lot less animation.
The gub'mint have told us that McCain is strong, and that Palin has Family Values, so we should listen, right?
What the fuck happened to independence and questioning authority!
This country needs a good dose of trotskyite agitation in the schools and colleges!
Regarding Palin and Babygate... Bristol is not the issue - it is exactly as Jim Harrison stated back at #163. It's the sheer hypocracy of the McCain/Palin ticket to which we should be objecting, as loudly and as forcefully as we possibly can.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | September 2, 2008 10:09 AM
And to throw a baby in the mix...well, that's just asking for trouble! - Claudia
Quite - a baby should always be minced, added to the mix in small portions, and each portion thoroughly blended in before adding the next! Otherwise the dish invariably comes out lumpy.
Posted by: Dave Munger | September 2, 2008 10:48 AM
My mother was 18 when she had my sister, 19 when she had me, got married, and split up with my father by the time I was 5.
I'm betting my mom will have even more in common with Bristol in a few years.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 2, 2008 11:07 AM
Because they all use participation models based on previous elections. So Obama's lead right now looks like it's only 5 to 6 points, but if the participation of certain categories (such as youth) is much more important in this election, that lead could transform itself into a real difference of at least 7 to 9 points. I sincerely doubt that it will go the other way. And that will not be a close election.
Posted by: queenofdenyl | September 2, 2008 11:08 AM
Does anyone else find it curious that this story "broke" during intense coverage of the first major gulf hurricane since Katrina?
Posted by: Kseniya | September 2, 2008 11:22 AM
It's good to see that everyone's following the script.
Posted by: SASnSA | September 2, 2008 11:38 AM
What I get from Palin's statement that her daughter is pregnant and chose to keep the baby is this: She chose to keep the baby, that's all that we ask, that other women continue to be allowed to choose the option that best fits their situation. Most choose to have the baby anyway.
Palin's pro-life, and would take that right away from other women. Of course this assumes her daughter really had the choice in the first place, but Palin has said her daughter made the choice.
Posted by: negentropyeater | September 2, 2008 11:48 AM
Lilly,
Correct. But it does have an impact, it stops the reps from positioning Palin as this super-mother who succeeds in everything she does. The dems don't have to say anything. It's the reps who need to rethink the image they want to project about her.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 12:20 PM
negentropyeater wrote:
Okay. I'm going to make a suggestion that I think some people will hate -- it could have really bad blow back. Go ahead and tear it apart.
Palin as a super-mother is the vulnerability. It's another case of how Republicans represent the rich and don't understand the poor. How many families out there have the luxury, can afford, to raise a Downs syndrome child or help raise the baby of a pregnant daughter?
She's not a bad mother for her economic bracket, but she can't assume others have the same moral luxury she has.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 12:56 PM
Forgive me if I'm repeating someone else (it's so hard to keep current on Pharyngula comments these days), but...
Next?? I'm afraid they're a bit ahead of you on this. A minor phenomenon so far, but if they have their way, this will eventually be the only option for civil marriage, as opposed to an "alternative." Yet another reason, IMHO, to eliminate civil marriage altogether, in favor of a more business-like form of domestic partnership.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | September 2, 2008 1:08 PM
It's tough to be a Christian parent
Face-to-face with teenaged ardor--
The path they took has risks inherent:
Abstinence makes the fond grow harder.
Posted by: AKspock | September 2, 2008 1:20 PM
Bristol is probably named after Bristol Bay, Alaska.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 1:21 PM
What I care about is how bad a president she would almost certainly get a chance to be. Odds are high that she would succeed McCain, either because he (FSM forfend) drops dead in office or resigns due to poor health. Failing that, he may decline to run for a second term (also due to health/age)... and even if he served out two terms, an incumbent vice president is always the presumptive front runner to succeed a two-term president.
Anyone who votes for John McCain has to assume that they're effectively voting for Sarah Palin for president! I've even heard speculation (admittedly a bit conspiracy-theory-ish... but at the same time, frighteningly plausible) that she's an intentional Trojan horse for the theocratic wing of the party.
This baby bird of the right wing, totally unformed on national and international issues, couldn't possibly be anything other than a toothless viceroy for the darkest forces of the Dominionist theocrats whose positions she (I'm guessing naively) parrots.
If you don't want the feds hunting atheists with AKs from helicopters, vote Obama/Biden '08. Okay, okay, that's a bit melodramatic... but it's not as farfetched as I wish it were.
Posted by: NickG | September 2, 2008 1:22 PM
SteveM @ 196
Bristol and Sarah share 50% of their DNA. Trig, if he is Bristol's daughter could have anywhere from 0-50% of Sarah's DNA (slightly more than 50% in the perfect scenario where he has two of grandma's chromosome 21s). If its closer to 50%, that could make maternity less easy to distinguish.
However if Levi Johnston is the father, that would be easy to distinguish from the 'first dude of Alaska'. While Trig could have from 0-50% of the first dude's DNA, he should have none of young Mr Johnston's.
If of course there is random Alaskan male DNA in Trig's paternity test and Sarah Palin and Bill Clinton have a little something in common, that would be even more fun.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 1:26 PM
T-shirt!!!
Posted by: DominEditrix | September 2, 2008 1:38 PM
184: Cynic that I am, I expect a "tragic" miscarriage just before the election. That she's putting her daughter's alleged pregnancy onto centre stage to dispel rumours re: Trig is tantamount to child abuse, IMNSHO. Knowing that, by accepting the VP nod from McCain, her family would necessarily become the focus of attention, and knowing that her unmarried teen daughter was pregnant, tells me that she cares more about self-aggrandisement than the emotional health of her family.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 1:50 PM
DominEditrix wrote:
This is where speculation gets crazy.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 2, 2008 1:55 PM
And the pollyannas get tiresome.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 2:04 PM
Azkyroth wrote:
You seriously think that they have the clout to arrange a fake miscarriage?
It's not pollyannaish to point out when you've gone completely off the rails.
Posted by: Azkyroth | September 2, 2008 2:06 PM
I'm not sure why you think that would be difficult to do. Difficult to get away with, sure, but no one with any sense is going to vote for a ticket including Palin anyway, so...
It's pollyannaish that you haven't learned from the numerous responses, by people raised by wingnuts who escaped, to your naive incredulity that the wingnuts could possibly be "that bad." You're reminding me of a few principals I've had...
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 2:19 PM
Azkyroth wrote:
What do you think there is to learn? A couple people here had crazy parents and so they assume that Palin is a crazy parent too?
Oh, they're bad, but bad at what matters; policy. Speculation on how they manipulate their families... you do not have the information for that.
Posted by: DominEditrix | September 2, 2008 2:30 PM
215: I find it quite easy to speculate on the purported pregnancy. The announcement appears to have been made solely to dispel the Trig rumours, the she's-five-months-along is so blindingly convenient timelinewise and - if Bristol ostensibly had mono and was confined to the house for all those months during her mother's pregnancy, how was she off boinking her boyfriend?
So much of this stinks of Rovian strategy. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that Sarah is, indeed the mother of Trig, that the rumours were started by Rove's staff, that young Bristol's pregnancy was known about and was exploited in this way to earn Sarah points from the evfundgelicals. [BTW, the "choice" Bristol had was apparently whether to keep the baby or put it up for adoption. Abortion was never one the table.] Perusing the rightist Xtian blogs, I find that forgiveness and "Ooooh! Baby Xtian!" is the prevailing opinion - a far cry from the "Sinner! Harlot!" posts re: teens like Jamie Lynn Spears getting knocked up.
Anyone know where Post Zero on the Trig thing occurred?
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 2:47 PM
DominEditrix, your theory is too much like an X-files conspiracy.
Really, the whole thing probably boils down to sloppy vetting.
Business Week has an article on how McCain vetted her:
http://www.businessweek.com/election/2008/blog/archives/2008/09/corporate_board.html#more
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 2:50 PM
Not for nothin', but if you think my comment...
...is a bit dismissive, I'll note that I've been involved in small-town politics, which is all Ms. Palin had been involved in before her recent (and freakishly unlikely) goober-natorial ascendancy (albeit my "small" town is 3 or 4 times as big as Wasilla, AK). I know several women who have more electoral experience than Ms. Palin did before becoming governor (and, if you consider the size of constituency, maybe even including her governorship). I consider them all skillful and dedicated public servants, but they are in no sense equipped to stand up to Medvedev or Wen Jiabao or Imadinnerjacket or whoever ends up in charge in Pakistan. To their credit, they're sensible people (Democrats, after all!) who understand their limits; Palin, not so much.
But that's not to say her right-wing sponsors don't understand her limits. On the contrary, I
suspectfear they're banking on her limits.Posted by: cicely | September 2, 2008 3:22 PM
Norman Doering @150
Maybe I can help.
The reason why fundies don't want sex education in school comes down, essentially, to the (obviously mistaken) idea that, if you don't tell kids about sex, they won't know about sex; if they don't know about sex, they won't/can't have sex. Similarly they are against contraception for teenagers because being prepared for in case they have sex, is the same as premeditately intending to have sex; and if the teen is caught supplying him/herself on the side, why then, he/she is planning to have sex.
It comes down to the assumption that ignorance is innocence, and that humans being specially-created and not really animals, don't have instincts where sex is concerned. Pointing out that cats, dogs, horses and you name it don't have to be instructed about sex, is therefore irrelevant.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 3:33 PM
cicely wrote:
There's one little flaw in your analysis:
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html
From the above article:
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 2, 2008 3:36 PM
this babygate fervor distracts from all the real issues
Reproductive freedom is a "real issue".
Posted by: cicely | September 2, 2008 3:51 PM
And a belated addendum to my 233:
If, by some mischance, teenagers should have sex premaritally, then it must be punished, by pregnancy (and its fall-out), or by catching some sort of STD, the nastier the better. Something to make sure that they regret it for the rest of their lives.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 4:00 PM
cicely wrote:
I'm sure Poe applies here, there probably are plenty of fundies like that, but it seems more like a Stephen Colbert parody of a fundie, and a straw man.
I simply do not think that all fundies are the same and I think you need to ask more questions before you jump to conclusions about Palin.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 4:08 PM
Norman:
Re the quote you posted:
She can say that, but as long as she supports abstinence-only sex education, I'm not buying it.
IMHO the bolded portion is an oxymoron. I'm deeply suspicious of right-wing "feminists." I think they're almost always either clueless tools of the broader (and distinctly nonfeminist) right wing, or else deliberately disingenuous. YMMV.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 2, 2008 4:12 PM
my mother was also 18 when I was born and my grandmother was around 16.
Ah, time travel. *nods sagely*
Posted by: cicely | September 2, 2008 4:13 PM
Norman Doering @ 224:
Okayfine, Palin herself is pro-contraception, but this doesn't say anything about my analysis, inasmuch as I was talking about the position of Fundamentalists in general, and not speaking to Palin's personal opinions at all. You might say that it's anecdotal and therefore not evidence, but I'm right here in the Bible Belt, surrounded by Fundamentalists, and what I wrote is by far the dominant view held (or at least, publically espoused, often very loudly and at great length) by the majority of Fundamentalists who have offered an opinion in my hearing. Maybe I've only met atypical fundies; I don't know. Maybe there's a vast under-represented number of fundies who are pro-contraception. If so, then, hereabouts at least, they are being awfully quiet, and therefore tacitly allowing their position to be misunderstood.
Posted by: kmarissa | September 2, 2008 4:14 PM
Norman,
Did you happen to come across anything besides the article you linked that describes her position on contraception? I've been searching a bit but everything I find just references that one article, and it's hard to tell even from that article exactly how she is "pro-contraception". On the other hand, she supports abstinence-only sex ed, and Feminists for Life is pretty close-lipped about their views on contraception as well, but speaks of it rather negatively in their FAQs. http://www.feministsforlife.org/FAQ/index.htm#contraception
I really can't find anything outside that article that indicates she's pro-contraception; even the article itself doesn't quote her on the issue.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 4:22 PM
Bill Dauphin wrote:
I agree, there is a contradiction there. But I don't necessarily think it's the pro-contraception stand she's lying about. She may not grasp what "abstinence-only sex education" implies and think it means "abstinence-emphasis sex education."
Posted by: Kseniya | September 2, 2008 4:25 PM
"This is a very small room!"
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 4:30 PM
It pains my massive ego to admit it, but I don't get the reference.
I CAN HAZ EXPLANASHUN, PLZ??
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 2, 2008 4:40 PM
YES. YOU CAN HAS.
Being There
Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 4:42 PM
cicely wrote:
On the position of Fundamentalists in general, yea, you might be right. Though I doubt if they would use your wording. I'm sure they have code words and phrases to hide the inconsistency and vicious, unforgiving and punishing aspect of their beliefs.
I'm only saying don't assume Palin is the typical fundy. She only needs to be fundy enough to get the fundy votes away from Obama/Biden. If she's a hardcore fundy then McCain really screwed up his VP pick. We'd be really lucky then.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 4:49 PM
kmarissa wrote:
Not yet. I'm still Googling her name. Stay tuned. I'll share.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 4:54 PM
Owlmirror:
Thanks for the pointer. I saw Being There in a theater during its original release, and remember thinking it was brilliant... but I haven't seen it again since and don't remember much of anything else about it. Time to visit Blockbuster, I guess!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 4:58 PM
On that point:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 5:05 PM
No real info on Palin, but McCain's record sucks:
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/08/30/palin-contraception/
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 5:10 PM
Bill Dauphin linked:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Okay, that's a strong clue to her being a hardcore fundy.
But remember how Obama distanced himself from his church's pastor.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 5:54 PM
Hmmm, claims about Palin's stand on contraception seem to contradict each other.
I'm giving up for today. Reading too much repetitive stuff.
Her stand on lots of issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 6:24 PM
Forget the baby thing, it's silly.
The thing to watch is Troopergate.
Posted by: DominEditrix | September 2, 2008 6:27 PM
221: Remember Rathergate?
Posted by: Lowell | September 2, 2008 7:37 PM
One important question that I haven't seen anyone bring up here is, what kind of sex education did Bristol receive at Wasilla High School?
The Wikipedia article on Wasilla cites a Boston Herald article for the following:
I don't know exactly what "pushes abstinence education" means, but I absolutely think it's relevant.
If the sex ed policies Sarah Palin endorses contributed to her own teen daughter getting pregnant, that could be a powerful example of the ineffectiveness of those policies. I also think, however, that Obama is smart to stay out of it.
Posted by: bastion | September 2, 2008 8:29 PM
At #226 cicely wrote:
If, by some mischance, teenagers should have sex premaritally, then it must be punished,
Well, yeah, as anyone who's ever seen a typical Hollywood horror movie knows. The sexually active teens are almost always the first to die horrible deaths.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 2, 2008 8:51 PM
According to ontheissues.org, Palin eloped at the age of 24.
How does one do that, I wonder? From whom can a person elope, having attained his or her majority?
Or does elopement have some meaning in America that it doesn't have in the UK?
Posted by: bastion | September 2, 2008 8:53 PM
All this nosing around in Palin's life and that of her family reminds me of the biggest reason I'd never run for public office, as I've been urged on occasion to do. (Well, a reason other than the reality that most folks wouldn't vote for someone who is an atheist and so must surely be the spawn of Satan.)
While I might be willing to sacrifice my right to privacy, I don't feel I have the right to sacrifice the right of privacy of members of my family.
Not that members of my family have done anything particularly shocking--at least AFAIK--but I think everyone must have something in their lives that might be embarrassing if it became widespread public knowledge.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 2, 2008 9:11 PM
Dear Norman,
If you want to get some idea of how hardcore and demented Palin is on women's rights issues then take a look at this;
'Palin On Abortion: I'd Oppose Even If My Own Daughter Was Raped'
"In November 2006, then gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin declared that she would not support an abortion for her own daughter even if she had been raped.
Granting exceptions only if the mother's life was in danger, Palin said that when it came to her daughter, "I would choose life."
At the time, her daughter was 14 years old. Moreover, Alaska's rape rate was an abysmal 2.2 times above the national average and 25 percent of all rapes resulted in unwanted pregnancies. But Palin's position was palatable within the state's largely Republican political circles.
Now that she's John McCain's vice presidential candidate, Palin's abortion policy (among others) is undergoing renewed scrutiny. The Alaska Republican has long declared herself pro-life. And her credentials on the topic make her the belle of the ball among religious conservatives. But Democrats and abortion rights advocates say her stance, specifically her unwillingness to grant her own child a choice to end a pregnancy induced by rape, is drastically at odds with public opinion -- even among many Republicans."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html
This woman appears to be about as 'hardcore' as it's possible to get. What sort of 'choices' do you think she has really given her daughters regarding their reproductive capabilities?
If she had given her daughters access to, and education about contraception, rather than burying her head in the sand about the issue, then her daughter probably would not be pregnant as we speak. (if she truly IS currently pregnant that is)
And no, I'm not familiar with the film "The Virgin Suicides" by Sofia Coppola. I'll make a point of looking it up.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 2, 2008 9:21 PM
In my experience, the term is used (rather carelessly and inexactly, I agree) to refer to any instance if getting married suddenly, without prior notification to friends and family; not just to minors "running away" to get married.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 2, 2008 9:40 PM
DingoDave wrote:
Okay, you win. If she could say that about her own daughter she's a scary hardcore fundy.
McCain is either an idiot to pick her as VP or he knows that the country has shifted so far right we're already doomed.
Posted by: Lynnai | September 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Lets be horrible and practicle. Yes it is difficult to fake a misacarriage but it is very, very simple to induce one.
I did say horrible didn't I? Maybe horrific would be better. Yes it is off the rails, but not for the reason you mention. That idea is deeply insane, incredibly dangerous and 17 levels of stupid. But easy, it takes what, less then 5 minutes research on the web to find any number of herbs and chemicals that could induce a misscarriage. So easy it could just be the daughter trying to escape this fate we keep picturing her mother imposing on her rahter then it being her own choice rather thenn super scanal part two (you never know she could be Mommies perfect little pod child and be happy as anything, not that I've ever met a 17 year old who was).
Do we really deeply believe this will happen? No, I really don't think many people do, even the person who brought the idea up in the first place. But we talk about it. Why? So on the off hand chance it happens we cope that much easier.
Posted by: Kel | September 2, 2008 10:11 PM
Apparently McCain was going to pick Lieberman, but his advisors warned that if he did so, he'd isolate the evangelical vote. Kind of fucked up if you think about it. McCain / Lieberman would get a lot of independant and moderate democrat votes. Instead he pandered to the far right who wouldn't vote Democrat on their life.
Posted by: Rick T | September 2, 2008 10:34 PM
Breaking news,
Katy Couric has just reported that Carl Rove spoke of the Palin as VP choice as a campaign pick not a governing pick. Rove , as a synical ass, knows Palin is not fit for the job but doesn't care. There are those like him to pull the strings and all they need are a couple of mindless dupes to manipulate.
Posted by: DingoDave | September 3, 2008 1:54 AM
If you want to get a sense of just how crazy this woman really is, then take a look at this;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Make sure that you watch the video.
Holy Shit, it's worse than I ever imagined!!!