Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
I've been loath to say anything about Sarah Palin's impending grandmotherhood, the unwed state of her daughter, the shotgun wedding she's arranged for young Bristol, and all the other mud being slung. I think it's petty and inappropriate to campaign by attacking people's children.
That's why I also thought it was inappropriate in 1998 for John McCain to jokingly ask "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?," and cruder to answer his own question "Because Janet Reno is her father." That was low in 1998, and it's low today. McCain still owes the Clinton's an apology, and his two-faced attempts to decry such personal attacks when he himself has exploited them would be shocking if they weren't so central to his campaign.
Heck, he was against torture before he voted for it. He was for the consensus on the human cause of climate change before he nominated a denialist veep. And Palin was for wasteful earmarks before she came out against them last week. Before candidate Palin was for unwed mothers, she cut state funding for programs that helped teen mothers.
Let's leave the candidates' families out of this. McCain and Palin have done enough wrong on their own; we don't have to drag their children into the national spotlight.
Politics
Comments
As an outside ovserver to the US election hoopla, I think it would be *hilarious* if the grandkid comes out black.
Feh. Palin will drop out just prior to her court case, and the *real* republican veep candidate will be unveiled, without enough time for the public to vet him. I'll even bet on an outside chance of that veep candidate being Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Paul Murray | September 3, 2008 10:22 PM
What you said, Joshua. Nice blog you have here.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
Posted by: zilchf | September 4, 2008 2:21 AM
I'm torn on this one. Have been for a couple of days. I've talked about it on my blog (shameless plug (sorry)).
I agree that the family of the candidate should be out of bounds for reporters, unless . . . .
Unless the actions of the candidate's family bring into sharper focus the hypocrisy and/or politics of the candidate. Sarah Palin is anti-education, supporting opt-outs (to stop children from learning "dangerous" things like evolution and how not to get pregnant), she is pro-abstinence-only sex education (which has been proven not to work), and she is anti-government (she is more of a ruler than a governor -- governing requires give-and-take (whether in a family or city or state or the federal government) while ruling, governing by fiat, creates rebellion, factionalism and unintended consequences). So while I agree that Bristol Palin's pregnancy, in and of itself, is not a valid story, the illumination Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy brings to the right wing anti-education and anti-governing policies is a valid story.
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | September 4, 2008 9:45 AM
I agree with Josh and Billy, but can't resist adding: Five months pregnant?! Why hasn't there already been a shotgun wedding? That's the good old-fashioned way.
Posted by: Marge | September 4, 2008 3:59 PM