10 Comments

1. Jamie Holts  •  Sep 2, 2008 @8:58 AM
   

   I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.

2. Yowza  •  Sep 2, 2008 @11:40 PM
   

   Just for the record - the postings at DailyKos were overwhelming along the lines of “back off.” Your cherry picking of one awful comment among probably tens of thousands of comments shows that you either haven’t spent a lot of time there, are taking someone else’s word, or have on blinders.

   The site gets millions of views a day and hundreds of thousands of posts, there will be some chaff - and some trolls who post comments to be ugly.

3. James  •  Sep 3, 2008 @5:41 AM
   

   I’ve visited DailyKos a lot and I’ve run across a fairly consistent theme.

   As for this situation, they did remove the offending posts so I’ll give them that but the flagship liberal rag, the NYT doesn’t seem to care how they’re viewed, running 3 front page stories on Bristol and/or Trig Palin.

   The media seems pretty split on when to attack a child… Good Morning America’s anchors were pretty firm on NOT to attack family members like this yet four major networks last night were still heading up their newscasts with the story. One, with the headline of “Juno in Juneau”.

4. Chris  •  Sep 3, 2008 @8:56 AM
   

   In speaking with a neighbor over the weekend (a rabid partisan Democrat) she said Trig Palin was “fair game” because his mom made a big deal of her pro-life reasons for not having an abortion. The reasoning goes, Sarah Palin held him up as a model for the pro-life movement so any attacks on her pre-natal care (a la Alan Colmes) or allusions to him really being her grandson are not out of bounds.

   Sometimes the machinations of the liberal mind are unfathomable to me.

5. James  •  Sep 3, 2008 @10:04 AM
   

   Chris… the thing that gets me, is she DIDN’T use him as a prop. If she was going to do that, she would have said “and my lovely newborn Trig… who has downs syndrome” at her speech on Friday.

   The liberals I speak to online can’t seem to fathom her decision to “keep” the kid, and to me that says enough.

6. Esther  •  Sep 3, 2008 @12:54 PM
   

   I’d say it’s not so white and black as liberals can’t fathom her decision to keep the kid (I, for one, can completely see that decision and I applaud Palin’s family for doing so). Pro-choice != Pro-abortion, so don’t get those mixed up. And that is, case-in-point, *exactly* how the pro-choice stance is so easily painted as “evil” by the right, it seems. The quote that Chris made above is clearly antithetical to what Obama himself just said so that is also a multi-faceted issue I (as a liberal) am resistent to being painted into a corner with.

   Just wanted to voice my thoughts. I agree with Obama - keep the kids out of this. But look! It seems like they’re flying in Bristol’s fiancee to the RNC - it seems now that they want it both ways. Didn’t you just say Michelle was “fair game” because she “opened her mouth?” But the attacks the Repubs made (calling her Obama’s “baby momma”) are so far from the issues. This just seems like selective memory to me…

7. James  •  Sep 3, 2008 @1:08 PM
   

   Bristol and the rest of the family are with their parents at the RNC… since he has been brought into the light via this non-issue, it makes sense to me to include him. I see nothing wrong with that.

   When I said that Michele was fair game, I meant that if you’re going to campaign on behalf of your spouse for office and enter into the political arena you can’t expect a few punches to be thrown at you.

   If Todd Palin stood up and started vocally campaigning for his wife I wouldn’t have a problem with people throwing mud.

   Calling names and making mean spirited attacks just for the sake of being a jerk is stupid. It doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

   Also, I wasn’t lumping everyone into a pro-abortion playing field… just the friends I talk to on a regular basis. There is no yes/no side to the abortion topic.

8. Esther  •  Sep 3, 2008 @3:35 PM
   

   Do you think Cindy McCain granting a interviews is really not campaigning for her husband just because she “said” she intends to keep hands off of the campaign? So the media is actually being unfair because they point out in an interview *she* granted that Palin is qualified on foreign policy because Alaska is near Russia? There is tact that the media, in an ideal world, should respect - and there is outright immunity as a double-standard. So Michelle Obama should expect a few punches to be thrown at her but Cindy shouldn’t if she grants interviews?

   Or despite the fact that Teresa Heinz Kerry bankrolled her husband’s campaign, she should have still been immune to the scrutiny of where those funds came from because she, too, didn’t plan on campaigning for her husband?

   It’s interesting that you use the fact that the Dems brought up the pregnancy issue first to defend their flying Bristol’s boyfriend to the RNC. I thought they said it was a “personal family issue” in which they have rights to “privacy” - if you take a look at these actions, the RNC themselves sure aren’t treating it that way. Again, double-standard.

9. James  •  Sep 3, 2008 @8:26 PM
   

   Do you think Cindy McCain granting a interviews is really not campaigning for her husband just because she “said” she intends to keep hands off of the campaign?

   It could possibly be construed as campaigning, but compared to the extent Michele has gone for Obama, actually acting as his surrogate, running full blown town hall meetings on his behalf, Cindy McCain’s “campaigning” has been much of nothing.

   If memory serves me correctly, Teresa Heinz Kerry did a fair amount of campaigning on behalf of her Husband as well. May not have “planned on it” but she did all the same.

   Look, we could argue semantics all we want, problem is the point isn’t about adults being scrutinized… we’re talking about minor children being lampooned and lambasted on a global scale for cheap political points… THAT is uncalled for.

   It’s interesting that you use the fact that the Dems brought up the pregnancy issue first to defend their flying Bristol’s boyfriend to the RNC.

   Defend? It’s their choice. They may have had no intention of including him at this point and the pregnancy could have been a private family matter. Problem being, THEY didn’t choose to alter the situation.

10. Aung Kyaw  •  Sep 6, 2008 @5:48 PM
    

    I sincerely believe that Sarah Palin’s pregnant teenage daughter should bring more scrutiny to her policy views on abstinence-only education and her lack of support for programs to help teenage mothers (when it’s in direct conflict with her own daughter, still under her wings and not a legal adult). I also think it’s all too easy for the right to say “Look, here’s a mighty good example of a teenage girl who decided not to have an abortion.” Of course. Most teenage mothers face much more difficulty than Bristol Palin did, who has the luxuries of being in a supportive and caring family (and well-off might I add) and to have her boyfriend marry her. Many girls don’t have these options. They come from low-income families than cannot support one more person, coming from single mothers, have families that will not accept what they consider the result of reckless and irresponsible actions. Unlike most teenage mothers, Bristol enjoys the emotional, familial, and financial support of her family and husband. Bristol Palin has it pretty good, for having an unplanned pregnancy.

    If people can use Bristol as a poster child for the pro-life movement, others should certainly be able to scrutinize her mother’s record and political stances on these issues. It’s interesting to see that while the media has not blamed Sarah for her daughter’s unintended pregnancy, not too long ago, when Britney Spears’ 17-yr-old sister gave birth, her parents were slammed for being bad parents. That begs the question, should we question Sarah Palin’s parenting skills as well?

Leave a Reply