« Using my.barackobama.com to organize for marriage equality on California Proposition 8 | mcc's Blog | I got [tempbanned] from Open Left for making this post »
Why Bristol Palin Matters
I've seen suggestions that the just-revealed pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter doesn't matter. I think it does. This is why:
Palin wants to prevent teenagers from learning what they need to know about sex, and instead replace that teaching with filler that moralizes and preaches but doesn't do anything. She wants to prevent abortions even in cases of rape or incest. She wanted to amend the Alaskan state constitution to require parental consent for teen abortions, ensuring that the choice in cases like Bristol Palin's will be made by the mother's parents and not the mother. She was put on the Republican VP ticket more or less explicitly as a representative of the American evangelical subculture which believes all these things and wants to write them into our laws.
The Bristol Palin situation matters because of what it tells us about why Sarah Palin, and the subculture she represents, is doing all these things.
A drive-by commenter at 538 says:
What we see here is the intellectual bankruptcy of the "pro-life", anti-contraception, anti-sexual-freedom crowd: that they don't and probably never did care about the sex, that they don't care so much about marriage as long as you get that in place retroactively, that their morality begins and ends with creating babies. This is what the "culture of life" is about, where its endpoint goes: Teen pregnancy isn't a bad thing or something to be concerned about, it's essentially neutral. The only point at which teen pregnancy becomes a practical or moral problem is if you try to prevent it.
Q: Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?The thing that's important about Palin's daughter's pregnancy is not that a 16-17 year old got pregnant out of wedlock and the family chose to support it. If that's their choice, that's their choice. The thing that's important is that Palin wants to create a situation that will tend to leave everyone else's 16-17 year olds pregnant as well, with choice nowhere in the equation.
[Sarah Palin]: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
Palin wants to prevent teenagers from learning what they need to know about sex, and instead replace that teaching with filler that moralizes and preaches but doesn't do anything. She wants to prevent abortions even in cases of rape or incest. She wanted to amend the Alaskan state constitution to require parental consent for teen abortions, ensuring that the choice in cases like Bristol Palin's will be made by the mother's parents and not the mother. She was put on the Republican VP ticket more or less explicitly as a representative of the American evangelical subculture which believes all these things and wants to write them into our laws.
The Bristol Palin situation matters because of what it tells us about why Sarah Palin, and the subculture she represents, is doing all these things.
A drive-by commenter at 538 says:
Sarah and Todd Palin have issued the following statement: "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby..."A thread-starter at FreeRepublic says this:
Interesting. I see that this was Bristol's DECISION and they are proud of her DECISION. They are glad that she exercised her CHOICE.
They are in deed (if not in word) pro-choice.
Mary, Unwed Mother of Jesus, Did Not Abort the BabySarah Palin says she's "proud".
Bible ^ | 1 AD | Bible
Posted on 09/01/2008 12:03:15 PM PDT by xzins
Mary, unwed mother, did not abort the baby Jesus.
She did the right thing.
Joseph had his concerns, but he came around when God spoke to his heart about what he really believed.
What we see here is the intellectual bankruptcy of the "pro-life", anti-contraception, anti-sexual-freedom crowd: that they don't and probably never did care about the sex, that they don't care so much about marriage as long as you get that in place retroactively, that their morality begins and ends with creating babies. This is what the "culture of life" is about, where its endpoint goes: Teen pregnancy isn't a bad thing or something to be concerned about, it's essentially neutral. The only point at which teen pregnancy becomes a practical or moral problem is if you try to prevent it.
Advertisement





I know that you are all for uncompromising teenage sex.
But I hope you feel at least partly grateful to Obama's mother, who got knocked up when she was 18 and didn't marry his father until she was only 3 months before popping - that she wasn't on the pill and didn't abort.
Just think about what this race would be like if his mother wasn't punished with that baby.
September 1, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I despise this argument. Nowhere, ever -- does the pro-choice movement say you MUST abort. Never, ever.
We say it's a deeply private, personal choice. That not all 16 year old pregnant girls have the resources and support that, thank God, Bristol Palin has. I'm happy for her. And that the Palins never for a minute had to worry about the medical care for Trigg and his mother if anything had, God forbid, gone wrong or could still go wrong. And that a robust and devoted government and school system will give the less advantaged parent a chance to teach their special needs child and meet their medical needs.
Does John McCain support those policies? Wouldn't John McCain have voted in such a way that Obama's mother couldn't have gotten food stamps to get through? I wish Sarah Palin had a longer record to compare to. I can extrapolate from her far right wing beliefs that are documented; but she conveniently doesn't have a much of a record to judge her by.
THAT's what this is about. It's about not forcing anyone to abort, or not abort. It's about choice.
I've read your comments here for months. Your support for Hillary Clinton led to spirited discussions on this site, and I've enjoyed the debate. But this comment -- that the pro-choice movement is in some way forcing abortions on people who do not want them, preferring abortion in all cases -- is beyond contempt. You had my respect. You've now lost it.
September 1, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you support linking Bristol's pregnancy to a political purpose of taking down her mother - which the original post clearly does - I don't care for your respect.
Suit yourself.
September 1, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The post by 57andunder focused on Sarah Palin's public stance on public policies. In other words policies that affect all women, not just hers. That is the focus of the assertion.
No one really gives two cents about Bristol.
What everyone cares about are policy's that affect their own lives which are the antithesis of Sarah Palin's positions!!
September 1, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, Lalo, I will put this in terms you can understand:
The mother is using her daughter's future to score cheap political points.
I wonder how Bristol feels to have her future mortgaged to her mom's political ambitions in this way.
But, Lalo, since there's nothing under your hat, you wouldn't wonder.
September 2, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently the crime of STATUTORY RAPE doesn't faze you. Under most state laws, women 18-years-of-age and over enjoy the priviledge of having consensual sex with any male they choose. This would apply to Barack Obama's adult mother. Whether she married the man who impregnated her or not has no bearing on the case currently under discussion. Of legal age to make such decisions for herself, she required no punishment for having unwed sex, nor would she have required punishment had she decided to abort the fetus she carried as a result of legally consensual copulation. She had the freedom to choose whatever course of action she felt best.
Not so for UNDERAGE 17-year-old girls like Bristol Palin. The 18-year-old boy who legally raped her could in many states wind up in prison instead of at the altar (where he hasn't wound up yet and may not. I don't know the age of consent in Alaska, so perhaps the law in that state considers 17-year-old girls legal adults who don't require their parents' permission to make sexual decisions. If Bristol Palin has not reached the legal age of consent in Alaska, on the other hand, then her parents refusal to prosecute the 18-year-old male who legally raped her implies that they condone such illegal copulation. Not a particularly "law and order" type of "family value" as far as I can determine.
Frankly, I don't give a shit about the personal sexual habits of other consenting adults; but I do think that America has far too many hypocritical republicans. Therefore, I support any widely available sex-education and/or family-planning programs that would result in fewer republicans breeding more religious republican zealots who don't believe in science or education, either.
September 2, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't know the law, you shouldn't say he "legally raped" her. Most states take two conditions into consideration: the age of both parties and the age difference between the parties. As it happens, the applicable AK law seems to require that the "victim" be under 18, the "perpetrator" be over 18, and that there be at least 3 years between them. There's nothing to prosecute here.
September 2, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makin' the rounds, Lalo. Why do you insist on posing as a Democrat?
September 2, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo idiot.
Abortion was illegal, and the pill didn't exist when Obama was conceived.
You must really be a Repub troll, your intellectual dishonesty fits right in.
September 2, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo idiot.
Abortion was illegal, and the pill didn't exist when Obama was conceived.
You must really be a Repub troll, your intellectual dishonesty fits right in.
September 2, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo idiot.
Abortion was illegal, and the pill didn't exist when Obama was conceived.
You must really be a Repub troll, your intellectual dishonesty fits right in.
September 2, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As opposed to Bristol having">http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/12/time-for-sarah-palins-first-grandmas.html">having a little bastard — that’s the good old Religious Right term (assuming there’s actually going to be a birth tomorrow, let’s stand by).
And, the bastard's father's mom has now been arrested on drug charges, to boot.
December 19, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been reported that Palin does not believe in contraception period. Condoms provides protection against diseases for young and old alike.
What I don't know is if this is something she validates for herself and hers or for all and would use her posiiton to attempt to circumvent the distribution for those in need.
Also, if there is no birth control in her family, it's not 'too late' for her to become pregnant once again. That would definitely be problematic for a Vice President or President.
All the above is why this is appropriate to be discussed.
September 1, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life."
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html
September 1, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you are forgetting that the Republicans have a plank in their platform that calls for increased funding for "abstinance only" sex ed. I'm just wondering how that is working out for Ms Palin.
September 2, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well for Ms. Palin. She has the poster child for it.
And the poster child herself? She serves a purpose very well, as long as she doesn't argue with the 'adults' in the room.
September 2, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to exploiting the difficult situation of an innocent 17 year-old, this argument fails because it demonstrates a misapprehension of how policy opinion formation works. Stanford political scientist Shanto Iyengar has published the results of media exposure experiments that reveal the following: when shown news stories about individual cases of a given social phenomenon, people's opinions about public policy are not affected. For example, documenting the story of an unemployed homeless person does not change a subject's opinions on matters of welfare or unemployment. On the other hand, if they are shown a news story that gives information on aggregate poverty and unemployment, their opinions do change (and in the expected direction). So, for various reasons, anecdotes don't change minds (which, come to think of it, is quite rational).
So, don't flog the story of any individual family, no matter how demonstrative you think it is, if your goal is to influence public opinion. Not only is it bad form, it's pointless. If you want to talk about the failure of abstinence-only education, talk about the scientific studies that show they don't change teenagers decisions about whether to go all the way. Then talk about how, without accurate and candid sex education, these teenagers are more likely to get pregnant without wanting to, and to spread sexually transmitted diseases. Talk about how unwed teenage mothers are less likely to get a college education and achieve a decent standard of living for themselves and their children. People say this science stuff is boring, but it's more likely to change people's minds than pin-pointing any given personal story.
September 1, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I believe wedded teenage mothers do even worse on measures of educational completion. I wish I could remember the source of the stats I read a couple of years ago on this. But, basically, pregnant teenage women who get married are much more likely than young women who don't get married to continue their education, and they are more likely to have another child within a couple of years. And, of course, their marriages are much more likely than those of adult women to end in divorce.
So, pickabone, I agree with you generally, but I wouldn't fall into the right-wing trap of arguing that the problem is unwed teenage births: marriage is, economically and educationally, even worse for young women than unwed birth. Marriage is not the cure-all the abstinence-only proponents wish it was.
September 1, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the info. My point was more about the difference between teenagers with and without children (not husbands), but I was typing faster than I was thinking.
September 2, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the context, I think you meant to say that "pregnant teenage women who get married are much less likely than young women who don't get married to continue their education."
September 2, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, whoops. Yes, that's what I meant to say - thanks for the catch, mantis!
September 4, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Q: Why doesn't Bristol Palin matter?
A: She's not running for president.
September 1, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Statistically, the children of fundamentalist parents are more likely to get pregnant while teenagers, to receive less education, to hold lower paying jobs and to have their marriages end in divorce, than children of parents that are secular or of non-fundamentalist creed.
The reasons for this statistical confluence of bad stuff and fundamentalist religion are complex, but it is perfectly legitimate to ask wether the rest of the country would like to live under the policies devised by the people who have a demonstrative lack of ability to lead a family life beneficial to THEIR children.
I think that it is absolutely proper to ask if the lack of sex education for girls that Palin has backed politically and presumably controlled personally in her family, has contributed to her daughter's early pregnancy, which, anecdotes notwithstanding, is statistically a bad thing for a young woman.
September 1, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
lalo, i really feel as if you are one of those people who will secretly vote for the other ballot when no one is looking..you never miss an opportunity to tear down obama even if he is not part of the equation....
for the record, i am pro-choice, but i am not comfortable with the idea of personally aborting a child...i do want the choice though....especially in the case of rape, incest and some serious disease....it is too personal of a matter for the courts to decide....i wagre most pro-choice people feel the same way...pro choice is not akin to ABORT ABORT ABORT ...to suggest that it is is complete lunacy!
September 1, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone votes secretly, cher.
I'm also pro-choice. But to use the abortion issue (including education) to tear down Palin is so low-road it makes me ashamed of this party.
I hate double-standards and this blog is full of them, post after post, comment after comment. I hate hypocrisy and the last two or three days have been really toxic.
I understand this is a partisan blog and emotions run high. But I'm sorry I won't just stand by and cheer the smears. Call that what you like.
September 1, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
==But to use the abortion issue (including education) to tear down Palin==
Her stand on abortion, sex education and parental notificaiton, etc. is a perfectly legitimate direction of discussion of a Vice Presidential candidate.
National statistics already indirectly support the view that the policies she advocated all her life lead to MORE teen pregnancies, LESS education for women and MORE divorces.
Now, her personal family history shows the same trend. While not relevant to the overall debate, it should not be some kind of "politically correct" self-censorship for democrats to stop criticising the policies she advocates and stands for.
September 1, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
HER stand on abortion is a perfectly legitimate reason. Her daughter's personal situation is none of anyone's business. Unless you want to show your double-standard and act like a Republican, stop helping them.
September 2, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is what the "culture of life" is about, where its endpoint goes: Teen pregnancy isn't a bad thing or something to be concerned about, it's essentially neutral. The only point at which teen pregnancy becomes a practical or moral problem is if you try to prevent it."
I respectfully disagree with you on this point. I believe the "culture of life" is just that. Respect Life. I don't know anyone in church or otherwise who thinks that teen preg is okay. Certainly when in a fundamentalist church, like the one I attend, the goal is no sex before marriage. We on the left could stand to take a look at how loosely abortion is being talked about. Abortion is a horrific thing for a mother or a couple to endure. For some, it scars them for life. Let's not make light of such choices, one way or the other.
Also please note, this Palin business is a red herring. We must move on. Let this gossip go. It will lead to no good. To attack the right on this point is to raise the enthusiasm of their base. If you want to see those 5 million new jobs, the 1 million plug in hybrids at 150mpg, affordable (& univeral!) healthcare, and be off foreign oil in 10years, then we need to keep the spotlight on McCain. Marginalize Palin.
September 2, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
==I don't know anyone in church or otherwise who thinks that teen preg is okay. Certainly when in a fundamentalist church, like the one I attend, the goal is no sex before marriage.==
Do you know why, then, teen pregnancy, out of wedlock birth and divorce is highest precisely in regions of America where fundamentalist religion is strongest?
Is it not possible, even likely, that fundamentalist religion's emphasis on moral compliance through fear of eternal damnation as opposed to rational choices based on clear thinking is creating a generation of American children who are not able to cope well with social and sexual pressures of modern American society?
I don't see any reason why those of us who practice liberal religion (Universalist/Unitarian in my case) should shy away from discussion of these matters.
September 2, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi,
I believe the "culture of life" is just that. Respect Life. I don't know anyone in church or otherwise who thinks that teen preg is okay. Certainly when in a fundamentalist church, like the one I attend, the goal is no sex before marriage.
Okay, well, I apologize if my comments were disrespectful toward you or your church then.
I would like to ask, though, if it's okay to ask-- when I see comments like these, these comments from James Dobson and Tony Perkins, people who are generally held up in public as somehow speaking for religion and fundamentalist/evangelical religion in particular, it is difficult to know what to think.
In these comments, and really many comments like them that I have seen since this news came out, it seems that what Dobson and Perkins are expressing is not exactly that teen pregnancy is "okay" but that there is some level at which it's not such a big deal-- but only if you follow their instruction manual for how to do it: no abortions, marry the father. These are people who in other circumstances seem to consider a lack of abstinence to be a very big deal, here it's a distantly secondary concern. They talk of "forgiveness" (they always do, of course), which at first would seem to be the difference here, but this is phrased in such a way that seems to indicate that "forgiveness" is somehow contingent on or was earned by the couple "living out" "pro-life and pro-family values"-- they get forgiven because they followed the instruction manual, not because forgiveness is something just anyone deserves. In fact it seems to me Dobson's and Perkins' words, and heavily implicit in what I am hearing from Sarah Palin, is the idea that whether "the goal is no sex before marriage" or no, the following of that instruction manual for missing the goal seems to be much more important than whether the goal is reached in the first place in the first place.
So-- Am I interpreting these comments correctly? Are the sentiments of these comments representative of how evangelical and fundamentalists feel as individuals or individual churches? If not, how did it come to be that the sentiments are being by people who are presented as evangelical leaders-- is there some kind of disconnect between individuals and ostensible leaders here that I should understand? Are these reasonable questions to ask?
What do I make of this? Assuming I am not misinterpreting something, it seems to me reasonable to be actually bothered by these reactions from James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Sarah Palin, faceless people at 538 or freerepublic or whatever, etc. I for one do not see anything wrong with someone who is of the age of consent having sex in or out of wedlock, being pregnant in or out of wedlock, having an abortion, having a child, choosing to get married or not married once an unexpected child is found to be on the way, etc-- whichever the people in question choose, as long as it's chosen maturely and intentionally. But I do think it is reasonable to be bothered when I see people trying to limit everyone else to only one of these options. And when I see people like Dr. Dobson so brimming with praise for someone who chose one particular option to the point that anything except the way they chose seems almost irrelevant, then it seems hard to see his calls elsewhere for "abstinence" as anything else-- except just a cover for blocking off people's choices, so that everyone is limited to that one specific way of building relationships or building a family that's in his instruction manual. I don't care what the Palin family does-- but I do care about that, I care about actions and stances taken against choice, and I think it's fair to criticize those. (And yes, you're right that surely there are more important issues to get all hot and bothered about- but reproductive freedom and sex education are an important issue, one that never seems to get discussed in public anymore).
September 2, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mcc,
You are correct, this issue is relevant, and furthermore, since it is specifically Dobson et al. who have pushed her candidacy- evidence strongly suggests that without the need to shore up his Republican base, McCain would have preferred a running mate such as Joe Lieberman- who agrees with McCain on most issues, but is pro-choice
- we can safely assume that an Evangelical mom who has been recruited to shore up the base would have to please that base to get the desired effect. So, that is why we are hearing about the daughter's impending marriage now.She appears to be using her daughter's situation cynically, for political ends. I do not state that as a fact, but as a very strong, and justified, suspicion.
September 2, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That poor kid. She must be scared shitless. As if being pregnant at 17 isn't enough, it threatens her mom's political ambitions where the stakes are so high.
September 2, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her mother should have allowed her to attend a sex eduction class.
Now, Sarah Palin wants ALL American children not to have sex education tought to them.
The result is certainly more teen pregnancies.
September 2, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bademus-
Correct. Disregarding any "choice" debate or the merits of sex education, what I can't fathom is the character issue of Sarah Palin and John McCain. Instead of recognizing that you are grossly underqualified to be VP at present and that your daughter will eventually be exposed to national embarassment, Sarah Palin ignores these circumstances, grabs for the brass ring, and acts as if she has just made the finals of American Idol. Hey Sarah, you've just been tapped for the republican VP spot, what are you going to do now? "I'm going to Disneyton and embarass my eldest daughter! Oh, and clean up Washington and fight the godless Russkies."
And if John McCain can be believed (the mother-of-all willing suspension) that he knew of this, he is complicit in the callous unconcern for the well-being of this young woman/girl.
And they have the insolence to call Obama narcissistic!
September 2, 2008 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
STOP IT!
Yes there are statistics that show abstinence only does not work - keep Bristol OUT of them. Start a new thread. She is none of our business. And for the record pro sex-ed liberals sometimes end up with pregnant daughters too.
If Bristol becomes an issue it will be to McCain's advantage. People will see us as attacking a teenage girl for political advantage- because that is exactly what we would be doing.
DON'T.
September 2, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I took my own advice and started a new thread.
Realize by attacking a teenager we are playing right into McCain's hands.
September 2, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bristol Palin matters for the same reason Michelle Obama and Rev. Wright matter. It's all part of getting to know the candidate. And given that Sarah Palin and the Republican party in general have made a political issue of family life, Sarah Palin's own family life is open to political comment. Republicans--including Sarah Palin herself--have not been shy about lauding Sarah's decision to have her fifth child and Bristol's decision to have her first. By doing so, they are clearly using Sarah's family life to create a certain image of the governor for political purposes and to set an example of the kind of decisions they think public policy should encourage. Given this, it is absolutely fair to look closely at Sarah's family life and ask: is this really as positive as the Republicans are trying to make it?
September 2, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally! Yes, I agree. People here don't recognize that you can bring up the issue in a perfectly reasonable way that doesn't involve the specifics of the family. I wrote something similar here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/of-palen-teenagers-decisions-d.php#comment-3070806
September 2, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I`m with Lalo here - if you have grimaced at the John McCain Chelsea Clinton joke and thought `what a creep`, were appalled and outraged with the Obama smears being circulated, or railed about Rovian tactics - leave Bristol McCain out of this debate. To do anything less would be reprehensively hypocritical.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by trying to slide her into the political discourse surrounding either a) this campaign, or b) sex education and reproductive rights in general.
September 2, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really believe poor little Bristol HAD a choice? Even if she'd been willing to buck her parental indoctrination and have a quiet abortion (Alaska apparently doesn't require parental consent for teen abortions),she'd surely have been terrified the story would leak out and sully her mother's anti-abortion political reputation.
I feel sorry for the Palin kids. They're dealing with major family issues at the moment: worries about the safety of a brother heading to Iraq, a new sibling with Down's Syndrome, Bristol's pregnancy, all while being newly plunged into the spotlight of the national media. A good show of "family values" by Mom and Dad?
September 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue isn't Bristol Palin. It's her mother, who, as Chris Matthews so succinctly put it on Morning Joe this morning, reserved her family's and her daughter's right to make a choice about her pregnancy, but who wants to bring the power of the state to bear on other women's daughters, to force them to have babies, even when fathered through incest or rape.
Governor Palin doesn't want other women's daughters to receive sex education or birth control, but she reserved the right for her daughter to eschew both abstinence and birth control. Her POLICIES, if enacted, would take away from other women, the very choices she is so proud that Bristol was able to make.
The issue is hypocrisy and public policy, not to mention the judgment of John McCain in foisting this family melodrama on the country in such a reckless fashion.
September 2, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really believe poor little Bristol HAD a choice? Even if she'd been willing to buck her parental indoctrination and have a quiet abortion (Alaska apparently doesn't require parental consent for teen abortions),she'd surely have been terrified the story would leak out and sully her mother's anti-abortion political reputation.
I feel sorry for the Palin kids. They're dealing with major family issues at the moment: worries about the safety of a brother heading to Iraq, a new sibling with Down's Syndrome, Bristol's pregnancy, all while being newly plunged into the spotlight of the national media. A good show of "family values" by Mom and Dad?
September 2, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really believe poor little Bristol HAD a choice? Even if she'd been willing to buck her parental indoctrination and have a quiet abortion (Alaska apparently doesn't require parental consent for teen abortions),she'd surely have been terrified the story would leak out and sully her mother's anti-abortion political reputation.
I feel sorry for all the Palin kids. They're dealing with major family issues at the moment: worries about the safety of a brother heading to Iraq, a new sibling with Down's Syndrome, Bristol's pregnancy, all while being newly plunged into the spotlight of the national media. A good show of "family values" by Mom and Dad?
September 2, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's is - oncealawyer - Family Values. The GOP has rammed that down our throats for almost 10 years. This is what their family values are - and I'm sorry for Bristol and this situation - but everyone needs to know the ramifications and hypocrisy of the position this woman has taken vis-a-vis women's rights.
The GOP has clearly staked it's position now - We Hate Women and Think you are Dumb Enough to Fall for this.
September 2, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct.
In fact, I would be perfectly happy if Palin came out and say she rethought her position on things like sex ed in light of these events and has come to a new conclusion.
I don't expect my leaders to always get it right -- they are human after all. I do expect them to be constantly learning and growing. That has been one of the biggest (and least discussed) failing of GWB.
September 2, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way we play into their hands is by running scared.
IF you are going to be afraid of: the GOP, McLame, the religious right the media or anyone at all- don't talk to me.
There is nothing to be afraid of.
September 2, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am embarrassed that so many here feel that it is our right to drag a 17 year old girl into national politics. I don't agree with Sarah Palin on much of anything, but I do believe that she has the right to raise her family as she sees fit. Whether or not this was truly Bristol's decision is not our business, and we will not really ever know.
It is fine to criticize abstinence only policies or pro-life policies or even family values platforms, but using a 17 year old girl, who is going through a very difficult time right now is just plain wrong.
To the poster who claimed that Sarah Palin being able to get pregnant is not something we want in a vice president....Go back to your cave and stop embarrassing yourself.
September 2, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO one is using anyone.
Knock it off. I'm sick of this bullshit about what we can and can't say and do.
THat's a loser's game.
September 2, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it her mother who dragged her into the spot light?
September 2, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The double standard seems to be that the Republicans get to use her keeping the child and marrying the father as an issue but no one else gets to comment? It illustrates the hypocrisy of the party not the people who bring it up to point out Palin's own positions. The party of family values? Imagine if they were talking about Joe Biden's daughter. Is anyone else struck by the parallels to Jamie-Lyn Spears? And the holier than thou attitudes; the railing against evil Hollywood; her mother being castigated for the crime of bad motherhood. The hypocrisy is just as much the issue as accepting the vp position and allowing her daughter to become a punchline on late night talk shows.
September 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you - I love sanity.
September 2, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been reading this story about Bristol Palin all weekend and have come to this conclusion. If the story that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby is true, then why wouldn't she put this horrible rumor to rest by releasing her medical records and her birth records. Why would she choose to bring her daughter into the harsh light of the national media and expose her pregnancy. We do not need to know that this 17 year old is pregnant. My god who would not spare their child from this kind of scrutiny. I will believe that Trig is not Sarah's baby until her medical records have been released.
September 2, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Murry posts:
"Frankly, I don't give a shit about the personal sexual habits of other consenting adults; but I do think that America has far too many hypocritical republicans. Therefore, I support any widely available sex-education and/or family-planning programs that would result in fewer republicans breeding more religious republican zealots who don't believe in science or education, either."
I'm in your camp - all the way. Raised in the Midwest but living in the South for the past 30 years I've been exposed to a culture of Christian hypocrites who thump the Bible while ignoring its tenets and intelligent reasoning. I regard these people as either clincally insane or psychologically unstable, delusional and pathologically corrupt, as I do Sarah Palin - and for that matter John McCain.
September 2, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republican creed, as summed up by 18 year old Levi Johnston, Bristol's purported husband to be:
'I'm a f--kin' redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s--t and just f--kin' chillin' I guess. Ya f--k with me I'll kick ass."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/51459.html
September 2, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like a real winner; I'm sure he'll make a terrific husband.
September 2, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarah Palin has proven she is an incompetent mother.
Bristol deserved better but I guess Mom was too busy pushing her own career to care. A family-valueless Sarah Palin, who paid so little attention to what her child was doing and with whom, is not fit to run a family none the less the country.
McCain is truly the prisoner of intolerant holier than thou ignorant and incompetent religious fundamentalists bigots who do not know what it is to be an American or a Christian.
September 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's missing is this -- can someone please explain to me how taking the focus to Bristol Palin helps Obama/Biden STRATEGICALLY in any way whatsoever? It distracts us from focusing on the fact that she's pro-secession, from the fact that McCain did a poor job of vetting, etc. We don't need this. The potential negatives are too high and there's just no reason to go here.
It's not about being scared -- it's about being stupid by not being careful about how we're controlling the media narrative. Leave the religious right on the sidelines. Not only that, but how about we follow the lead of our OWN CANDIDATES and support the strategy they're establishing?
Stop thinking about the personal battles you want to fight and start thinking about winning the presidency and securing a strong, Democratic majority. Separate the moral issues from this discussion altogether -- and please explain how any of this is SMART STRATEGY?
September 2, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I don't know your gender, but I can tell you right now that women are very interested in seeing the baby story spread further.
There are legitimate reasons for that and if you don't get that - tough.
This isn't about Obama - some of us have our own axes to grind here. This woman is anti-everything woman and what is working with American women is this woman's abysmal family values.
ANd that is legitimate and it's not stupid - Family Values is over half the reason they put her on the ticket, for Christ's sake.
September 2, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, I don't disagree with you ON THE ISSUES at all. I grew up in a fundamentalist family and I escaped it years ago. I know the horrible situations these kids deal with -- I know young girls that were sent away or basically shunned for getting pregnant. I get it.
But don't you think what's most important is to win this election and widen the majority so that we can start enacting changes on not just this issue, but many, many others?
September 2, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was not the folks at TPM who dragged Bristol into the political limelight. It was her mother. The Palins are the ones who are showering her with praise for her so-called willingness to "have the baby and marry the father". It can hardly be expected that, after the dog and pony show, the rest of the us should sit by and say nothing. I don't know if she is really pregnant or not. Just how bad was the mono? Not bad enough to keep her down apparently. I say give it up not because it is bad form but because there is too much else going on. Whether she is or isn't, whether she marries him or not doesn't mean a whit. Are you counting how many of the press are being arrested at the RNC? Don't get distracted! Pay attention to what's important.
September 2, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was not the folks at TPM who dragged Bristol into the political limelight. It was her mother. The Palins are the ones who are showering her with praise for her so-called willingness to "have the baby and marry the father". It can hardly be expected that, after the dog and pony show, the rest of the us should sit by and say nothing. I don't know if she is really pregnant or not. Just how bad was the mono? Not bad enough to keep her down apparently. I say give it up not because it is bad form but because there is too much else going on. Whether she is or isn't, whether she marries him or not doesn't mean a whit. Are you counting how many of the press are being arrested at the RNC? Don't get distracted! Pay attention to what's important.
September 2, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was not the folks at TPM who dragged Bristol into the political limelight. It was her mother. The Palins are the ones who are publicly showering her with praise for her so-called willingness to "have the baby and marry the father". It can hardly be expected that, after the dog and pony show, the rest of the us should sit by and say nothing. I don't know if she is really pregnant or not. Just how bad was the mono? Not bad enough to keep her down apparently. I say give it up not because it is bad form but because there is too much else going on. Whether she is or isn't, whether she marries him or not doesn't mean a whit. Are you counting how many of the press are being arrested at the RNC? Don't get distracted! Pay attention to what's important.
September 2, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was not the folks at TPM who dragged Bristol into the political limelight. It was her mother. The Palins are the ones who are publicly showering her with praise for her so-called willingness to "have the baby and marry the father". It can hardly be expected that, after the dog and pony show, the rest of the us should sit by and say nothing. I don't know if she is really pregnant or not. Just how bad was the mono? Not bad enough to keep her down apparently. I say give it up not because it is bad form but because there is too much else going on. Whether she is or isn't, whether she marries him or not doesn't mean a whit. Are you counting how many of the press are being arrested at the RNC? Don't get distracted! Pay attention to what's important.
September 2, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was not the folks at TPM who dragged Bristol into the political limelight. It was her mother. The Palins are the ones who are publicly showering her with praise for her so-called willingness to "have the baby and marry the father". It can hardly be expected that, after the dog and pony show, the rest of the us should sit by and say nothing. I don't know if she is really pregnant or not. Just how bad was the mono? Not bad enough to keep her down apparently. I say give it up not because it is bad form but because there is too much else going on. Whether she is or isn't, whether she marries him or not doesn't mean a whit. Are you counting how many of the press are being arrested at the RNC? Don't get distracted! Pay attention to what's important.
September 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was not the folks at TPM who dragged Bristol into the political limelight. It was her mother. The Palins are the ones who are publicly showering her with praise for her so-called willingness to "have the baby and marry the father". It can hardly be expected that, after the dog and pony show, the rest of the us should sit by and say nothing. I don't know if she is really pregnant or not. Just how bad was the mono? Not bad enough to keep her down apparently. I say give it up not because it is bad form but because there is too much else going on. Whether she is or isn't, whether she marries him or not doesn't mean a whit. Are you counting how many of the press are being arrested at the RNC? Don't get distracted! Pay attention to what's important.
September 2, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was not the folks at TPM who dragged Bristol into the political limelight. It was her mother. The Palins are the ones who are publicly showering her with praise for her so-called willingness to "have the baby and marry the father", exploiting her for their her own political gain. It can hardly be expected that, after the dog and pony show, the rest of us should sit by and say nothing. I don't know if she is really pregnant or not. Just how bad was the mono? Not bad enough to keep her down apparently. I say give it up not because it is bad form but because there is too much else going on. Whether she is or isn't, whether she marries him or not doesn't mean a whit. Are you counting how many of the press are being arrested at the RNC? Don't get distracted! Pay attention to what's important.
September 2, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless of what you think here, you have to enjoy this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c12DfJ_J2A
September 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo idiot.
Abortion was illegal, and the pill didn't exist when Obama was conceived.
You must really be a Repub troll, your intellectual dishonesty fits right in.
September 2, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the nickname Bristol is getting: The Juno of Juneau.
September 2, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was my understanding that Lyda Green (Alaska Senate President and also of Wasilla) was effectively retiring, (not running for re-election) because she felt Palin had played politics with an abortion bill.
She flat out accused Palin of shelving the bill to avoid distraction whilst Palin pursued her Natural Gas Pipeline legislation.
Here is the story from the Anchorage Daily News.
"Green pressures Palin on abortion"
http://community.adn.com/node/126122
September 2, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was my understanding that Lyda Green (Alaska Senate President and also of Wasilla) was effectively retiring, (not running for re-election) because she felt Palin had played politics with an abortion bill.
She flat out accused Palin of shelving the bill to avoid distraction whilst Palin pursued her Natural Gas Pipeline legislation.
Here is the story from the Anchorage Daily News.
"Green pressures Palin on abortion"
http://community.adn.com/node/126122
September 2, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was my understanding that Lyda Green (Alaska Senate President and also of Wasilla) was effectively retiring, (not running for re-election) because she felt Palin had played politics with an abortion bill.
She flat out accused Palin of shelving the bill to avoid distraction whilst Palin pursued her Natural Gas Pipeline legislation.
Here is the story from the Anchorage Daily News.
"Green pressures Palin on abortion"
http://community.adn.com/node/126122
September 2, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was my understanding that Lyda Green (Alaska Senate President and also of Wasilla) was effectively retiring, (not running for re-election) because she felt Palin had played politics with an abortion bill.
She flat out accused Palin of shelving the bill to avoid distraction whilst Palin pursued her Natural Gas Pipeline legislation.
Here is the story from the Anchorage Daily News.
"Green pressures Palin on abortion"
http://community.adn.com/node/126122
September 2, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was my understanding that Lyda Green (Alaska Senate President and also of Wasilla) was effectively retiring, (not running for re-election) because she felt Palin had played politics with an abortion bill.
She flat out accused Palin of shelving the bill to avoid distraction whilst Palin pursued her Natural Gas Pipeline legislation.
Here is the story from the Anchorage Daily News.
"Green pressures Palin on abortion"
http://community.adn.com/node/126122
September 2, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was my understanding that Lyda Green (Alaska Senate President and also of Wasilla) was effectively retiring, (not running for re-election) because she felt Palin had played politics with an abortion bill.
She flat out accused Palin of shelving the bill to avoid distraction whilst Palin pursued her Natural Gas Pipeline legislation.
Here is the story from the Anchorage Daily News.
"Green pressures Palin on abortion"
http://community.adn.com/node/126122
September 2, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was my understanding that Lyda Green (Alaska Senate President and also of Wasilla) was effectively retiring, (not running for re-election) because she felt Palin had played politics with an abortion bill.
She flat out accused Palin of shelving the bill to avoid distraction whilst Palin pursued her Natural Gas Pipeline legislation.
Here is the story from the Anchorage Daily News.
"Green pressures Palin on abortion"
http://community.adn.com/node/126122
September 2, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry sorry sorry sorry
got bit by the infernal error troll
September 2, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
And poor Levi Johnstons mother got arrested on drug charges today. Levi Jofnston's poor mother, I meant to say. It's turning into a real mess.
December 19, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink