There you go
The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.
To reiterate:
1. Sarah Palin showed gross negligence in flying while in early labor with son Trig.
2. Abstinence-only education doesn’t work.
3. Palin also shows poor judgment in running now when it will foist her oldest daughter to the spotlight during what has to be a pretty difficult time of her life. (Hey, Palin’s young — if she’s that ambitious she could’ve waited four to eight years.)
Then there’s this line in the story that made me snort:
The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama’s name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their ‘campaign of change,’” a senior aide said.
That’s like saying Madonna endorses my blog because I’ve invoked her name in this space. And let’s remember that the left-leaning Huffington Post dismissed this rumor as ugly and unworthy of the campaign.
I think all politicians are nuts for running when it comes to what it does to their families but I sure wouldn’t run on an abstinence-only platform with a 17-year old pregnant and unmarried daughter who is going to bear the brunt of the judgment. (I felt the same way for poor Jamie Lynn Spears.)
Edited to add: Twittering Drublood points out that if this were a liberal woman running on a major ticket, McCain would be all over it saying that it proves that working women raise screwed up kids.
I haven’t seen this many bizarre plot twists since I watched General Hospital in fourth grade. And this is only day four!?!
Is she abstinance only?
I feel bad for her whole family right now
It doesn’t change the fact that I love her politics, but I still feel bad for them 
If you had the child of a friend who had gone through the entire safe sex education would you then say that safe sex education doesn’t work?
now I’m not a fan of abstinance only education, I am in favor of wait till you are married, but if you don’t here is how to stay safe.
but to blame this on abstinance only education when Thousands maybe millions of women get pregnant every year with full on sex education.
How do you know that Bristol didn’t use a condom and it broke. Hoe do you know that she wasn’t on the pill and it failed?
Well, and succinctly put. (and might I say I am feeling quite honored to be cited on your blog.)
I feel like the lowest person on earth, because really, I wouldn’t wish unintended pregrancy and public humiliation and speculation on any teenager- but WAHOO!
I just think this woman set herself up as the perfect woman and perfect mother for the far right, and she may not be as perfect in their eyes now.
LisaV, I’m so disgusted that she’d hang her daughter out to dry like this. How can she do this to her? And before people accuse me of sexism, I’d say the same thing about a man running on conservative sex-ed politics with a pregnant teenage daughter.
Funny too CNN reports Bristol’s soon to be Husband is a Sr Aide to John McCain’s Campaign. Stating she will be Marrying her uh Babies Father … 17 hmm what a way to start your future. I guess Politics & Family sleep together.
Yeah, I really think it might be a time that I would go, “wow, at least two of my children are going to really need my husband’s and my attention, and this is the right time to run for national office” instead of saying “the dems are being mean to me” and using her child’s crisis as a shield and a weapon.
That should have read “this is NOT the right time to run for national office.”
My hands seldom keep up with my head I guess.
“LisaV, I’m so disgusted that she’d hang her daughter out to dry like this. How can she do this to her? And before people accuse me of sexism, I’d say the same thing about a man running on conservative sex-ed politics with a pregnant teenage daughter.”
Dawn, I pretty much agree with this point (what, we agree on something political!) but I want to ask if you would feel the same way if it were a man running on a liberal sex ed policy?
Erin, I’ve decided not to get into a political discussion/debate with you at all because we will never never never agree on things we both of us hold near and dear. So even though I’m itching to answer this question, I’m not going to.
@erinthebeekeeper, the thing about people who believe in liberal sex ed policy is that we all agree that there is nothing that is 100% effective in preventing teenage pregnancy, *including* abstinence education. Abstinence education is unrealistic *and* it doesn’t work to keep teens from having sex. Safe-sex education, while also not 100% effective at preventing teen pregnancy, is at least living in the real world, which is way more respectable than living in the fantasy world of “if I tell my daughter that her virginity is precious, she’ll never give it away.” Because, chances are, our daughters will have pre-marital sex and if they do it without the full-range of knowledge that a safe-sex education gives them, then their chances of pregnancy are much higher. If my daughter is on the pill and uses a condom and still gets pregnant, well at least she had a chance at preventing it. If she chooses to not take our advice about precautions and then gets pregnant, we still tried our best and she still had a shot. But if our best advice for her is to remain a virgin until she’s married, and then she gets pregnant? Well, I would feel like we didn’t give her a chance at all. And that’s what would be unacceptable to me.
I still don’t have my head around this one, it’s just way too bizarre. But one thing I DO know - Sarah Palin’s judgment, as displayed by her willingness to put her daughter through this as well as her decisions when she went into labor is absolutely not ready to be a heartbeat away from the White House.
The thought of Sarah Palin in charge of this country scares the crap out of me.
Heh. Look where abstinence only education got me! *smirk* Wait. Did I just make myself the butt of my own joke. Totally. Because I didn’t know JACK about my OWN BODY until AFTER I had my first child. Why? No one was talking about it. No one was teaching it. I had no idea about fertility signs. I had no idea about the prevalence of HPV. Nothing. So simply saying, “Just don’t do it,” doesn’t teach women ANYTHING about their bodies.
I will now stop ranting in Dawn’s comment space. I’m totally riled up and stuff. Muahahaha. In fact, Imma go broadcast some rants.
Oh my oh my oh my.
As Shark-fu put it, the GOP was getting its convention on and a Tennessee Williams play broke out.
Let me see if I get this: McCain’s campaign in Alaska employs the father of the barely-17 year old’s soon-to-be-baby? As a senior something?
Nuh-uh. That’s just too, too much. It implies that an adult man in a position of authority relative to the family impregnated their child. Which in a poor community of POC is understood as the type of social problem that requires a program of intervention, but apparently in the upper reaches of Alaska’s GOP requires a job offer to the mother of the teen.
Whoa.
And to Dawn’s updated point, it’s outrageous that the AP have endorsed the extreme spin that places the fault for the howling about it on Obama’s campaign. And good on him for saying the truth, which is that since his mother was a teen who had to marry his father, insulting this child is fightin’ words.
And also, whoa. That Laertes guy knew how to write a play, huh?
I think y’all have gone through the looking glass now. Things just keep gettting curioser and curioser.
Mostly I think I would never want to be a politician anywhere.
And how could Palin do this to her daughter knowing that the press would descend upon the story at full bore.
PhoenixRising, I was under the impression that it was the father of the boyfriend who worked for McCain, not the boyfriend himself.
Details aside, I’m a little surprised at the level of criticism of Palin’s choosing to run under these circumstances. I’ll take you at your word that you’d respond the same way if it were her husband running, but even so. Are we saying that any parent should avoid taking any job that will take them away from their family while the kids are young? Only if there is a kid with special needs, or facing special challenges? Does this apply to parents who are in the military or are long-distance truck drivers, or only to jobs like politics that involve exposure as well as time?
I am not at all a fan of Palin’s - I disagree with her politics and I think she is unqualified - but I wouldn’t argue that she is wrong to run. She’s been offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and there is no guarantee at all that it would be offered again in 4/8/12 years. If elected, she will have the opportunity to make changes to the country that will influence the world her kids grow up in. In my mind there is a difference between public service and running off to join the circus. Yes, it means some added challenges for the kids, but also some wonderful opportunities. If her husband/friends/family are willing to step up and help, does she really need to give up her dream just because she has kids? If you had a vision of what you wanted the country to look like, and you believed you brought something to the table that couldn’t be easily replaced, and you were given the opportunity to try and make that vision a reality, wouldn’t it be worth some short-term sacrifice? Even for the kids, who presumably will be around to benefit from the policies she’s hoping to put in place?
Sarah, I think all politicians with kids under the age 18 are nuts, period. I look at what Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton and even the Bush twins went through and think it’s crazy. (Same goes for Obama.) It’s not something I’d base a vote on though because politicians are a different breed of people and as far as I’m concerned, how they manage their personal lives is their deal. (Same goes for cheating spouse politicians — I don’t care politically even if I have an opinion personally.)
I do think they’re using Bristol as a pawn though. I’m starting to think that they master-minded the “is Trigg Bristol’s?” conspiracy in the first place so that they could introduce her pregnancy on the defensive instead of the offensive.
But I don’t have proof of that. The only thing I know is that a pro-abstinence only politician is running with another politician who has voted down funding to prevent teen pregnancies, get birth control covered by insurance, educate kids about their bodies, etc. and she’s doing it with an unwed, teen daughter who is pregnant. And that seems like she’s sending her daughter out to the wolves for the sake of political ambition.
I think they’re using Bristol’s personal crisis as part of their pro-life, conservative platform and that’s what I’m criticizing. Not the whole “she should be home with her daughter” thing — if she wanted to work 100 hours a week at a job where her daughter WOULDN’T be forced into the critical spotlight I wouldn’t be blogging my opinion.
Yeah–what a horrible thing to do to that poor girl. I am just so sorry for the daughter. Her mothering just gets worse and worse the more I learn about her.
They can’t cast this at the feet of “liberal bloggers” or democrats. How could they think it wouldn’t come out? She made a choice to put her daughter in a terrible position of public humiliation and judgement.
Sorry, I don’t see the family values in this at all.
Dawn, I do see your point - I wouldn’t particularly want to trade places with any of those kids. But I also like the idea of having politicians who can relate to the average family because they are in a similar place. If we said no politicians with kids under 18, that would mean all politicians would either be child-free or over 50. I’m not sure that’s a trade-off I’m willing to make.
As far as Bristol, I have mixed feelings. The decision she made (keep the kid and marry the guy) seems in keeping with her family’s values. Barring any evidence to the contrary, I’m going to assume she would have made the same decision independent of her mother’s job. Certainly she’s getting tons of publicity, but it’s not like this was a secret that was ever going to be kept, even if Palin decided not to run. Bristol was going to have to deal with the fallout anyway - I would think that the opinions of random bloggers/media probably matter less to her than those of the people she knows. Palin has said that she loves and is proud of her daughter. Basically, I think Palin’s actions are compatible with someone using her daughter for political gain, but I also think they are compatible with someone who honestly believes in that value system, has passed those values on to her daughter, and is trying to support her as best she can. Given that, I’m tempted to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Short of not having those values, and short of choosing not to run (and you certainly make a legitimate argument that she shouldn’t have, even though I disagree) - are there other things you think she should have done differently?
And for those who think Palin shouldn’t have run based on the pregnancy - at what point does a mother’s responsibility to her 17 year old daughter end? Would it have been her responsibility to raise the child if Bristol didn’t want to or didn’t feel capable? To support the child financially? I guess I’m just a little bit uncomfortable with the idea that mom’s choices about what her life is going to look like for the next 8 years should be controlled by the choices her teenage daughter made. I think Palin owes Bristol her unconditional love and emotional support, but I’m not sure she owes her life changing decisions.
Ok, enough rambling
I’m just trying to think all this through and figure out how I feel about it, and I appreciate you letting me use your comments for a sounding board.
Sarah, I think one of the reasons they chose Palin for the VP slot is because of the pregnancy. I’ve been thinking on this yesterday and I think they wanted a maverick, an outsider but also someone who could be a post-child against choice. I think they chose Palin because of Trigg and also because of Bristol. From what I can tell it was an open secret in Alaska that Bristol was pregnant so the vetting folks knew this going in.
Karl Rove’s number one guy is working for the McCain campaign and I wouldn’t put anything past him (or Rove, who I’m sure has his hands in there). I honestly think that the McCain campaign is capitalizing on Bristol. I think Palin is allowing this. It feels differently to me than just lining the kids up for a photo op.
Using your kids for political gain is something I judge. Can’t help it. But she’s not my candidate anyway.
Dawn, I heard the same thing (about the pregnancy being an open secret). Which is actually part of why it felt less manipulative to me. It was already generally known, it was going to become widely known very soon no matter what they did, why not get it out of the way and move on? Seems better for Bristol than waiting for a slow news week and doing it then…
I do share your opinion of politicians using kids for political gain. I guess I’m just not 100% convinced that’s what’s happening here, but it could well be.
It may not be entirely fair to have an opinion on who needs to stay home and take care of their children, but as much as I admired John Edwards (before his grimy affair was revealed) I thought he should have been thinking about staying home with his small children whose mother was dying instead of running for President.
So my thinking that Palin should do it is not sexist.
I can see your point about Rovian nastiness, but I just can’t see this working as a single-issue campaign. Things are too complicated in the country these days. I guess it might turn people out who’d otherwise stay home, but I am still mystified–especially since I agree with you that Rove is in this. Just doesn’t seem that smart to me. Have there been any polls on it do you know?