The new revelation that Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin’s daughter, is pregnant has rekindled an old debate: should families of nominees be off-limits? I have always maintained that families, beliefs and secrets of all policy makers are fair game. Shocked? Don’t be. The alternative would be silly.
We elect policy makers who set the course of our civic lives. In return, we should expect them to propagate initiatives that they, themselves, adhere to and respect. We should not, under any circumstances, accept the idea of do as I say and not as I do.
Bill Clinton’s difficulty in comprehending what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is notwithstanding, his sexual conduct while President was absolutely fair game. Democrats attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that the President’s sexual conduct had nothing to do with (and did not affect) conducting the business of the people. Wrong! Being the leader of the free world, the trust it requires and the responsibilities it carries have EVERYTHING to do with conducting the business of the people. He had sex with someone other than his wife at the Oval Office. I don’t particularly care about the infidelity part. I do, however, care that it happened while he was President, and that he lied about it.
Feel free to not mention to me that President Bush possibly also lied. This post is about family matters. The premise of the Iraq war is irrelevant here.
Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter is absolutely fair game. He should not support a constitutional amendment banning gay/lesbian marriage if his own family includes a lesbian.
Accordingly, Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter is absolutely fair game. Many in her own Republican party would consider this a failure of parenthood, strong family or religion. All efforts by the Palins and the campaign to positively spin this unfortunate occurrence by saying that they are very proud of Bristol’s decision to keep the baby and to marry the young man are meaningless. They have no choice in the matter. Aborting the baby would be considered sinful. Not marrying the father of the baby would make Bristol an unwed, underage, single Mom. Either way, Palin would not have earned a spot on the Republican ticket.
And now for the kicker. Remember when Britney Spears’ younger sister, Jamie Lynn, became pregnant at 16? I remember how Conservative media personalities such as Limbaugh and O’Reilly had a field day with that. O’Reilly said about Jamie Lynn “. . . the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her . . .”
Well, that was then, and it was about a God-less liberal entertainer brat. Sarah Palin’s situation is completely different. Right? Reacting to a Cynthia Tucker column in Atlanta Journal-Constitution, O’Reilly explained why Sarah Palin is not to blame:
Now, the latest thing is that people like me don’t condemn Palin’s family but we condemn other people who, uh, gave birth out of wedlock. I’ve never condemned anybody who gave birth out of wedlock. Ever in my life. I don’t make those kinds of determinations. What I do say and, this nut Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes a deal out of this, I said that Britney Spears and what’s her sister’s name who’s pregnant, their parents were irresponsible – Jamie Lee – because they were running around unsupervised. Yeah, I said that and I believe it. It has nothing to do with the Palin situation, okay? So, I mean, it just, it really, it makes me angry. → source
Oh, but it has everything to do with the Sarah Palin situation, Mr. O’Reilly. On the one hand, Jamie Lynn’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 16 was a strong indication of failed or absent parenthood. On the other hand, Bristol Palin’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 17 is a private family matter for the Palins only. It doesn’t make sense, does it?
I only have one thing to say about that: WE’LL DO IT LIVE!
Watch this video if you don’t know that reference.
And here’s a video of Bill Clinton’s difficulty with the word ‘is’.
RSS Feed This Blog
September 10, 2008 at 8:28 am |
[...] jmjorat wrote an interesting post today on VP’s Family Is Absolutely Fair Game – Really!. Here’s a quick excerpt: [...]
October 1, 2008 at 4:49 pm |
Cheney: He should not support a constitutional ammendment banning gay/lesbian marriage if his own family includes a lesbian.
I do not understand that logic. If Cheney believes that it is wrong, he supports the ban. I do not see how having a famly member who is a lesbian should change a person’s stance on banning gay marriage. Is that to mean that no matter what one’s own belief system is, that they should throw it out the window because someone in their family lives a different lifestyle than they do? Forget about gay marriage, you can apply that to any numerous topics out there that people differ on.
I do believe there are differences when it comes to parents raising their children and unwed, teen pregnancy. This isn’t a religious/non-religious or Republican/Democrat thing but good parenting vs. bad parenting. Good parenting and Bad parenting can fall under any of the previous mentioned. Good parenting is raising one’s child up in the way you believe they should go and giving them guidance so they do not depart from it. Bad parenting is letting your children do whatever they want even if you know it may not be the best thing for them because you are afraid to say no, neglecting them, living a bad example, etc. So when a child, from good parenting, becomes pregnant it is not a reflection of poor parenting but that sometimes no matter how good the parenting a child will go against the way they are taught. I believe the Palins were present in their children’s lives. I believe the Spears were not and allowed their children to be taken in by the wolves of the excesses of fame and fortune.
October 3, 2008 at 12:09 pm |
Step Right Up,
Your points are well thought out. I disagree with them, but that’s fine.
I too believe that the Palins were there for their children, and that Spears parents were not. So far we agree. But the end result is exactly the same in both cases. If I begin preaching to my daughter (who is currently a toddler) to abstain from sex before marriage (or at least before she turns 18), I have taken a stance about the topic. If she becomes pregnant anyway at 17, no matter what I have done to prevent it, I have FAILED – albeit unintentionally.
My point about Cheney is that having a lesbian daughter and seeking a constitutional amendment against gay marriage are two ideas at odds with each other. Consider, for instance, a clergy who molests young boys while he (or others in his Church) preach against homosexuality and child abuse. Can you believe that person’s surmon? What if you didn’t know about their child abuse issue?
My point was not that Cheney could not have his beliefs. My point was that families and past activities of anyone who can affect our lives are fair game.
October 23, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
I am glad that while the media may or may not have (didn’t watch) said things about the child being pregnant that I haven’t heard either Biden or Obama mention it. As I do not agree that it should be played out. As a parent I don’t think I would want my child to wed the father based on a pregnancy (does that make me rep or dem?) and I wouldn’t want the father to drop out of school. However, those aren’t issues on my plate rather hers, so i would prefer to mind my own business. Hopefully I have taught my 14 year old (and my 9 year old when she gets there) to do better.
On the same note I am not a Palin supporter, and do NOT want her as VP (and even the remote possibility of her being president), but I don’t want that opinion based upon these issues.