It’s just another case of the Republicans not practicing what they preach and when caught, declaring it a private family matter. Owing up to your hypocrisy is more than they can take… It’s also obvious why Obama doesn’t want to make an issue about this high-profile teen pregnancy—it’s the kind of personal attack that might influence the swing voters that he’s hoping to bag.

In other words: politics as usual.

And let’s not forget, Bristol is covered under Mom’s insurance, paid for by the state of Alaska. Taxpayers footing the bill for an unwed mother: IOKIYAR.

I have made this claim several times.  I do not care that Palin’s daughter is pregnant, but I do care that she is a good example of why abstinence-only education does not work.

Isn’t Gov. Palin herself a staunch abstinence-only sex education endorser? Doesn’t the pregnancy of a minor child of one of the candidates represent a major failing of family values and abstinence-only education? Isn’t it a valid question to ask: If she cannot instill her much-hyped family values into her own child then why should we listen to anything she has to say on the subject?

I’d say, yes it’s evidence abstinence-only education doesn’t work at least not 100%.  But just because her daughter is still free to make her own choices doesn’t mean everything the mother says on the matter should be discredited. I’ve been born and raised a Catholic, I’d say my mother instilled in me good “family values”  did that include many lessons about sex, honestly, not that I can rememeber.  Do I have good “family values” I’d say so, but do I have pre-marital sex. Yep.  But does that have any effect on my mother’s credentials, I don’t feel so.

Just because someone does their best to instill certain values in others doesn’t mean those others don’t still have the ability to decide what to do with those values.

Sorry if that didn’t make much sense. I’m not usually good at getting my point across.

Palin is so proud her daughter “made this choice on her own” to have the baby and to marry the father.  I feel so bad for that kid.  How much choice do you really suppose she has?

Getting married at 17 with a kid, in the national limelight of a hotly contested presidential race.  How many strikes is that against a happy life?

The choice to keep her skirt down and her knees together, like God intended?

God, if by God one means Nature, went to some extremes to tamper with the cognitive and behavioral process to get that skirt up and those knees apart.  Kids who aren’t told the whole story don’t know what to expect when they start having relationships.

It’s no surprise the naval base of Bristol is full of discharged seamen.

Sorry. Yes I know its crude, but if this happened in the UK there would be some sort of joke on the more satirical programs (‘Cutting’ comedy from the US often seems a bit tame).

What is it about US politicians and UK towns. Chelsea Clinton, Bristol Palin- which sounds like a railway station.  Of course, Bristol (cities) is rhyming slang)

Is it Cheyney’s daughter who is a lesbian.  Lesbians, unmarried teen mothers- moral breakdowns alround.  I blame the overly liberal parents.

Kids who aren’t told the whole story don’t know what to expect when they start having relationships.

This one probably had a good idea what would happen, seeing as how good her mother is at the job. Of course I worry about girls like herself having kids because once they’ve got one of their own and they’re out of the house they’ve got a good chance of being absolved of taking care of the brood of younger siblings.

Chief:  the point is, those are your mother’s credentials for being a mother.  Not a vice president. 
We are dealing with a vp candidate who would love to enforce sexual ignorance as the LAW.  She can’t make it work for her own holy family, but still feels qualified to prescribe this failed course for the whole nation, purely because of her christian arrogance.  And once again, our nation of christian retards will ignore this completely, because she still tows the line of bullshit.
It’s not just ignorance or not being able to live up to ideals…it’s arrogance, a refusal to compromise or even learn, and it is the height of hypocrisy.  These are the qualities that American conservatives have in abundance, and these are the only qualities that they possess.

What Neil said.  If her Mom hadn’t been willing to make those abstinence-only decisions not only for her own daughter, but for all the Alaskan high-schoolers to boot, I wouldn’t have thing one to say about it.

It’s one thing to make your own kids ignorant.  To foist your wishful thinking off on millions in the form of regulation and funding is quite worse.  Little Miss “Hockey Mom” obviously has no problem putting her career before her children.  Why else would she subject her kid to the brutal spotlight, or go back to work three days after her Down’s Syndrome baby was born?  So her nauseating pretensions to motherhood need to be called on the carpet for the sham photo-op they are.

I think it’s a shame for anyone to bring family matters into politics. As already stated by others, it will be hard enough for the daughter. If not for that reason, then because we should take the high road and not sacrifice morals for politics. If you’ve ever been pissed off by a Dem witch hunt for family stuff then you shouldn’t get involved with Sarah’s daughter.

I would think that Sarah is bat shit crazy enough that we could stick to the issues and be okay with that.

My supposition is that McCain has either let his penis get the better of him, or he is perhaps subconsciously throwing his own campaign. I can think of no other explanations for this piss-poor VP choice.

The legal age in Alaska is 16. There is nothing wrong or illegal with her daughter getting pregnant at 17.

The media is getting an orgasm over it because most people still think its somehow bad to have a kid before 18.

Like cubiclegrrl pointed out… the woman won’t even stick around to be there to raise her child with Downs.  Instead she would rather whore herself out to the political system instead of taking care her family - what should arguably be her first responsibility SINCE SHE BROUGHT THAT LIFE INTO THIS WORLD.

You know, the longer this whole presidental process goes on, the more it angers me.  Obama is given a cape and called Superman because he’s not a Republican and in the meantime I still have to worry about McCain because he has the Evangelical and racist votes.

One step closer to Idiocracy all the time…

While I think that the behavior of Palin and her daughters is a legitimate concern considering Palin’s conservative viewpoints, I feel the attacks should come from us and not Obama.

I believe Obama’s comment was more directed at his staff and not the general public.  When Obama made that statement he had just been asked (accused) by a reporter if his staff was personally responsible for spreading internet rumors about Palin’s daughter, and he angrily responded that no-one in his campaign was involved in these rumors, and if so they would be fired, and repeated that this is the kind of politics he doesn’t want to be engaged in.  I also think that Obama has a personal interest in insulating his own daughters from such attacks.

If Obama succeeds in winning the electron in November on a platform based on ideas and issues, and not the type of slander Bush engaged in 4 years ago against Kerry, he will have a powerful mandate for change.  Bush on the other hand, did not win on the strength of his ideas, and thus accomplished nothing these last 4 years.

The big rumor is that the baby with Down’s Syndrome is actually Bristol’s and not her mom’s.  Take a look at the picture:

http://mississippifarian.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/rumor-central/

Jcali-well said.  I wouldn’t want to see a candidate
stoop to neocon levels, but where is the so-called “liberal media” when we need them?  No one will ask tough policy questions.  Instead, the entire media will let the repubs use this as another “family values” rally while being allowed to break their own rules and ignore their own hypocrisy. There is a real issue here, but it will never be aired by the
media.

I wouldn’t want to see a candidate
stoop to neocon levels, but where is the so-called “liberal media” when we need them?

But hasn’t the “liberal media” already done what was needed? Is there anyone on America who doesn’t know about this?

I think that a full-out frontal attack by either Obama’s people or the media might actually result in a backlash. As things stand now, people can see the complete hypocracy of the conservative-christian faction for themselves.

This isn’t the only blog that has commented on how the GOP would have gone into a feeding frenzy if the roles were reversed. People are aware of this, and perhaps taking the ‘high road’ would be the best option for the ‘liberal media’ as well as Obama and co.

Moloch, it’s not about the legality, its about the hypocrasy.

By saying its private, Obama has put the ball firmly back in the Reps court. If any similar issues come up, the republicans know that there is ammunition, and ammunition that Obama has very publically not used.  How will slinging mud play when Obama acted so nobly.

Liberal media my arse- they are just selling stuff like good capitalists.

Webs:

I think it’s a shame for anyone to bring family matters into politics.

That’s the point, isn’t it, Webs?  The Republicans want to get in our families and tell us what our moral obligations are in order to be good citizens.  I couldn’t care less what you do inside your own family, unless you’re beating your children or otherwise risking their health.  The Reps MADE it an issue.  If they can’t stand up to people taking a microscope to their own family values in order to make sure they aren’t being hypocritical, then maybe they should cool it on the whole “family values” thing.

Let me be clear in that I’m not suggesting we use this to attack Palin or McCain, but I think these are legitimate questions given the policies that the two of them endorse. I also think it needs to be pointed out to the general public that we’re not attacking them on this issue whereas the Conservatives most certainly would have had the tables been reversed.

swordsbane: right, and my point is that rather than stoop to the level of the Repubs we should say not attack them and stick to the issues. I could care less about the hypocrisy, and I understand this hypocrisy exists. To me that’s besides the point.

One thing that has consistently pissed me off about elections is how dirty they get. I would like to see the dirtiness put to an end and people decide based on REAL issues.

If anyone decides to bring Palin’s family into the light fine, that’s your decision. Just don’t bitch about it when the Republicans do the same thing.

Webs: It’s not the same thing.  I don’t favor calling the opposition a liar or name-calling, but if part of your party’s platform is that you have superior morals than your opposition, then it is mandatory that we examine those morals.  It is NOT okay to examine your opponents family values if it wasn’t part of their platform.

See the difference?  You’re right; There is too much mud-slinging in politics, but it is important to separate mud-slinging from critical analysis.  If the Republicans pick a platform issue, then it’s our duty as voters to examine their claims.  Obama has said that family values are hands-off.  That’s his choice, but I wouldn’t think any less of him if he went after them for it.

Mud-slinging isn’t mud-slinging for the topics it covers.  Character is important, morality and honesty are important.  It’s mud-slinging because of HOW you go after those issues.  In this case, it’s not important that Palin has a pregnant 17 year-old daughter.  Normally, I WOULD consider that off limits, because normally it doesn’t matter.  It would be creating an issue where there isn’t one, but these people claim abstinence works.  That 17 year olds getting pregnant isn’t a good thing and that it is the parents responsibility to keep things like that from happening.

Oops.  That failing is as important to point out as the Republicans think it important to have good family values, and they think that is really important.

And you think the only way to attack Palin’s stance on abstinence is to bring her family into the discussion? The data for abstinence just by itself is more than enough to use. I still fail to see why it’s necessary to go after her family.

Webs, to say that mentioning this example is “going after” Palin’s daughter plays into the Republican frame.  Nobody has “gone after” Palin’s daughter.  I have not heard anyone question the poor girl’s motives or morals - she’s just a kid in trouble, and unlucky enough to have a famous and piously moralizing mom. 

When we see anyone calling that kid names or saying she’s a bad person, we should nail them to the wall.  It hasn’t happened.