U.S. Presidential Election 2008

DanHessen, I really, really just want to ignore you, since I am not the only one on the thread questioning Palin's parenting, though you have chosen me to target.

I am not going to dig into the history books and find out how many billable hours Hillary put in when Chelsea was 4 months old. I will say she was not running for vice-president, and as far as I know she was living at home while Chelsea was an infant. She wasn't running a national campaign. But Hillary isn't the issue here. She never asked for anyone's votes on the national stage until this year. She doesn't have an infant or a pregnant teenager at home.

If you can't tell the difference between Palin's current situation and Hillary's, I'd suggest it is you who are sexist. They're both chicks, right?

Other than that, I'd say that I've already answered your questions.

If the school curriculum is so unimportant, why have it then? Parents cannot teach you everything, and all too many parents either don't care, aren't in the picture or are too busy (especially many single parents) to do this. It can be assumed Sarah Palin taught her children the importance of abstinence. One child did not listen.


You claim there were these "massive risks"- just how massive are we talking about?

The point about the exposure of the Obama girls to Jeremiah Wright's hate speech was within the context of parenting decisions.

Here is another quote from Barack Obama about the pregnancy:

Or she might have been raped. In Sarah Palin's book, it's all the same, outcome-wise, if the girl gets pregnant.

Pretty harsh, huh? Yup.

Anyway, I have no reason to doubt that the Palins did their job in the home with the sex education, in the context of their own values and all. KK seems to be making the wrong argument. It's important to have a complete sex-education curriculum in all schools, in case the parents can't bring themselves to, or just neglect to, do it themselves. Or in case their information itself is faulty, incomplete, out-of-date, or whatever.

Okay, well you don't find it unusal. So glad to know the rest of America doesn't agree. As their kids are forced to sit in a class that tells them having sex before marriage is wrong, yet the potential VP (a potential role model) has a daughter their age 5 months pregnant. I see where distortions of reality are what drive some conservatives.

This have to disagree. Public figures, peers, heck, Paris Hilton, everything that is American Society has a significant influence on a child/teenager. So it's never about personal responsibility when everyone else is doing it, because that's what it's about during those impressionable years, fitting in, conforming. And if that were not the case, then certainly, Palin's minor daughter would have known better and risen above it.

Americans have morals and scared family values, they just don't always aligned with the religious right, which kind of ticks conservatives off. Hence why there appears to be a compelling urgency to force their beliefs onto everyone else.

LOL : okay ... sacred

cinzia, I wouldn't want someone saying something like that about a daughter of mine as speculation. Palin is pro-life, and consistent about it- and it's her right to be. If I were a woman, I would probably not want to bear a child conceived by rape, but that's her belief.

KK, if your real problem is with conservatives, then why give a family going through a challenging period such a hard time? Seems like sympathy for them is more in order. One other thing- I see you are from Brooklyn. As I recall, NYC schools do not teach abstinence only.

Oooohh, how Freudian.

No. Not really. But you're doing a marvelous job of trying to slither away. You castigated this particular candidate as being a "bad mother" by "allowing" her adult son to make the decision to serve his country. By proxy, you're saying that MY mother, and the mother of every son or daughter who has chosen to serve, is a "bad mother". I call B.S. Likewise, you engage in the politics of personal destruction by castigating the father who, as far as I can tell, has been nothing other than a hard-working Joe, tending to his family. If you want to dish up any evidence that this guy has some sort of nefarious "ambitions", then by all means, dish it up.

I'm not speculating, Conquistador, any more than you were. You assumed the girl "didn't listen." I'm saying that in the Palin household values (and in other conservative households as well), whether or not she chose to have sex and didn't listen to advice about contraception, or whether the contraception failed, or indeed whether the girl chose at all in the first place, is immaterial once pregnancy occurs.

Cinzia, I think we can safely assume that she did not listen (at least not some of the time) if she was taught abstinence at home yet became pregnant, and I think it is a given she was being taught abstinence at home. That said, once a woman is pregnant, she needs support from those close to her if she does decide to have the baby so that she can have the best pre- and post-natal outcomes possible.

A 44 year old, carrying a Down's syndrome baby, her waters broke a month early and she'd already given birth four times (labour tends to get shorter with each previous birth). Getting on a plane and beginning a 20+ hour journey under those conditions was insanely risky. So much so that people questioned the story or her judgement or both.

Why is it that as I watch the RNC, I feel I'm attending a church convention, not a political convention?

Are you talking about pregnant, adult women or in high school not legally an adult pregnant teenager?

All pregnancies that a female chooses to carry to term.

DanHessen, I brought Palin's husband into the picture because it's not fair to blame Sarah Palin alone for poor parenting. Assuming they jointly made the decision for Sarah to accept the VP nomination at this time of obvious upheaval in their family's life, they are both culpable.

In the next few months, here's what's going on in the Palin family:
1. A son being deployed to Iraq;
2. A pregnant daughter getting married and having a baby;
3. Ongoing challenges from an infant son with disabilities;
4. A national presidential election campaign with subsequent move to the opposite side of the country if they are successful in their bid.

This seems like a lot for one family's 4 months. One of these things could be postponed to a later date.

You think I have no right to judge whether the Palins can handle this. Well, yes I do. They are asking for my confidence that Sarah can be a competent vice-president, and my vote. If I give her that confidence, and it turns out to be misplaced, that has repercussions for ALL AMERICANS, not just the Palin family.

Conky, she's not questioning pre-or post natal issues, she's taling about the Mother insisting on absentence and yet her daughter is pregnant. Ironic.

If Sarah Palin wanted to separate herself from her message, then I am sure the public would leave it alone, because at some point your realize as a parent, what you've taught your child didn't work. And as an Elected Official, what you want to propose makes no sense. Since she is a steadfast and staunch supporter of abstinence only in the school system and pro-life, AND McCain choose her for those conservative positions (among others), AND she is running for the highest elected office in the Nation ...

It gives me, and anyone else, every right to examine this issue.

ps. Brooklyn, as well as some other cities (and their Bd. of Education Depts.) are smart. Why impose a program on their students that is not effective.

that's fine, but i think it should be the choice of the female who's pregnant and not parents, friends, whomever. It's the person who is pregnant that should decide.
Also, just because one is pregnant doesn't mean they're a 'woman' female yes, woman not necessarily.

She's been an excellent governor so far.

McCain's Brain: Checking Out His VP Pick

Turn off Fox news and try another channel.

We don't know the whole story. This has happened to lots of other teenagers, BTW.

BTW, moctoj, I don't have English-language TV- I watch German-language TV. Sorry to bust your bubble.


The fact her daughter became pregnant could very well be viewed as an argument for abstinence, e.g., if she had observed it, she would not be pregnant. Also, unless the young lady was home-schooled, she could have been exposed to a non-abstinence curriculum at school.


And I have every right to contribute as well (to include disagreeing with you). If you can't deal with that it's your problem, and yes, a possible solution for you is also to avoid this thread since I won't.


And you know as well as I do that there is a lot of ineffective or missing parenting in NYC, and a huge rate of HIV infection, so, no, kids cannot be assumed to get everything on this topic from their parents/guardians/surrogate parents.

Jeremiah Wright's "hate speach" ?
Certainly he seems to be a fiery preacher, but I never saw any "hate speach".
Perhaps I missed them as i'm not such a media junkie, any examples Conq. ?

On the issue of sexism, I've noticed this throughout this political process that women have a number of times been talked about in
what I'd regard as a sexist manner to the point sometimes of down right misogyny.

Jeez, Monk - where have you been - asleep?

No. You made a boneheaded comment about her parenting viz her son's decision to serve his country. And instead of owning up to it you put on a tapdance routine that's fooling no one. You also call into question her husbands character by referruing to some "ambitions" that he supposedly has. Again, this is nothing more than the politics of personal destruction based on partisan prerogatives.

Note: I still think she's a bad candidate, and is bound to skupper McCain's chances. I also don't agree with much of her social conservatism philosophy. But you're impugning people's character just because they're on the other side of the political aisle. And that's frankly just lame.

Conky, you have internet no?

By golly, Conquistador, you have hit that nail right on the HEAD.

Maybe her mom should back gracefully out of her bid for a position that she is, in any case, not qualified for, and content herself with keeping her other little gig as Alaska's governor? So that the whole family can support Bristol and not be running around the country for the next few months?

Gosh, I'm envisioning happily married Bristol, age 21, with adorable grandchild, age 4, supporting a similar bid for national office in four years, when grandma is the ripe old age of 48.

Now that would be showing some family values. NO?

JEREMY CLARKSON FOR PRESIDENT.

The fun doesn't stop - Palin has hired a private lawyer for her troopergate scandal. 3 days after being named as a VP Nom. Train wreck update: news at 11.

I know the guy has severe criticism of American society, basicly sumarised:
"American is a racist society and African Americans get the worse end of the stick of everything".

My point is though, is that "hate speach" that "bad parent" Obama exposed his daughters to?
Or is it a fiery preacher expressing his right to free speach and making a socially relevent comment that would strike a chord with a large section of his audience?

When the MSM went postal on Rev Wright, I took the time to listen to some of his sermons. What he said, I didn't disagree with. I saw it in my own life. But like Obama said, the Reverend forgot that things had indeed changed. What he said just this weekend that Fox just reported (Brit Hume, nowhere on the web site to link to) says that the Reverend continues the tirade.

DanHessen, let's look again at the Palin Family To-Do List for the rest of 2008:

1. A son being deployed to Iraq;
2. A pregnant daughter getting married and having a baby;
3. Ongoing challenges from an infant son with disabilities;
4. A national presidential election campaign with subsequent move to the opposite side of the country if they are successful in their bid.

I understand that you disagree with my opinion that allowing your son to enlist in the military in this time of war, when he will almost certainly get sent right to the combat zone after basic training, is not the best policy as a parent. As you say, Track is 19 and legally an adult, and maybe his parents tried to discourage him from enlisting right now, to no avail. Which is all they could do. Fine. We probably also disagree at the core that fighting in Iraq at this point in the game is not the best use of a young man's time and health, but I don't think everyone else on TT needs to be treated to a knock-down-drag-out between us on that one. (I don't know if I've ever mentioned that my brother-in-law is a career Army officer.)

I also understand that you are really pissed off at me for that opinion, and that's why you won't stop gnawing that bone.

Maybe Mr. Governor Palin looked at that above to-do list and said, "you know, Sarah, maybe this isn't the best time to jump into national politics, sweetums." And Sarah said, "but I don't know if I'll ever get another chance." So they discussed it, and Mr. Governor caved, because after all, he's got a lot to gain by being Mr. Vice President. Let's not pretend, DanHessen, that he doesn't. Why else would one drag one's family into the mire like this, if not for some kind of gain? If he doesn't anticipate any kind of gain for such wanton disregard of his family's needs at this time, that's even worse.

So they both made the decision to let the family chips fall where they may and come out here to St. Paul to offer Sarah Palin and their family to be scrutinized in consideration for VP. I just don't like that package, from a family-values standpoint, DanHessen. I certainly don't think that whatever contributions I might make here on TT to the so-called-by-you "politics of personal destruction" is going to make a dent in the election results.

Certainly it's not swaying your vote.

Point blank. You called her a bad mother for having "allowed" her son to enlist when you have no possible way of knowing what her feelings were on the matter. You're simply back-peddling without admitting that you have no basis to call her a bad mother in this case. At all. Secondly, I'd certainly like to know why Mr. Palin "stands to gain something" over and above what Mrs. Biden and Mrs Obama stand to gain. After all, they are putting their own families through the same sort of wringer. And the Obama kids are in grade school, are they not?

BTW, don't even begin to think you know who I'm voting for. I've made my thought's on Palin's candidacy clear, for anyone who's thinking isn't clouded.

*Sigh.* Sorry, everyone else.


Would you like to hear again, ad nauseam, all the other reasons I think she and her husband have made some poor parenting choices? I'll bet nobody else here does.

Does my entire argument rest on the Iraq-bound son? No. IF the Palin parents didn't discourage their son from enlisting during a time of war with nothing to be gained in terms of valiantly defending the United States in the foreseeable short term, I consider that not the best parenting. It's not like the Russians are streaming across Alaska. NOBODY else here has challenged me on that one, by the way.


Never said he did stand to gain more than anyone else. The Obama girls' specific sex lives aren't being brought to the forefront by fault of their mother's all-round ill-conceived candidacy.


Don't know, don't care who you're voting for. It was my assumption that you wouldn't let my clouded thinking impact your, or anyone else's, decision. That's all I meant when I wrote: "certainly it's not swaying your vote."

cinzia, given that it takes time to train people to be technically competent and to work together, the military needs to do this on an ongoing basis, not just when exigencies occur, so, yes, people are needed at all times, especially since you cannot predict when the country or allies we have defense treaties with will also need our assistance. BTW, even in times of relative peace some servicemembers die in training accidents or as a result of getting hit by a car, or something else that can happen to any civilian as well. If people never join the military in times of conflict, it makes it much harder on those who did before the current conflict(s) began and to sustain a viable force both during and after the conflict. We don't know what sort of conversations the Palins had with their son, and some people have an overwhelming desire to serve in the military. BTW, not only Palin, but McCain and Biden have children serving in the military who have been or will go to Iraq.

Here, within a bit more context, is Palin's position on "sex-education":

why thank you (i really want to say 'captain obvious') for that... we already know that "explicit sex-ed programs will not find (her) support" where as abstinence programs will...
why did you give us that quote?

The quote contains relevant nuances, plus it's usually a good idea to consider a candidate's position within some sort of context.

An argument FOR abstinence?
That's even WORSE! Exploiting your own minor child for the sake of a failed political agenda. Dangling the kid out in the Public eye to make an 'example' of her. Um, by definition, in some circles, that's considered child abuse.


I could care less if you disagree with me or not. Apparently the discussion does, as you're trying awfully hard to justify the Palin's and your arguments just don't fly.


Good god. Troopergate in full motion.

Apparently you misunderstood- I meant an argument for a teenage girl to actually observe abstinence in order to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, which as far as minors go is not a "failed political agenda" and is the only completely foolproof way to avoid pregnancy. Palin needs to make no further argument- her position is already in the public record and her daughter's pregnancy is a private matter involving a minor and one which is anyhow being dealt with in a manner consistent with the family's values. As for "dangling in the public eye" it is the lefty blogosphere that did that by violating a minor's privacy- will you accuse them of child abuse?


I'm bringing another perspective into the discussion, one that does not seek to make this human issue a political one to be exploited, as you are doing. If I told you today is Tuesday I would expect you to dispute that.

It WOULD be an argument if multiple studies had definatively shown that abstinance only education DOES NOT WORK as teens will have sex. So you are only setting up a large majority of teens to fail and then have the traumatic decisions associated with becoming a teen statistic.

So PLEASE stop sounding as if it is just a simple matter of listening to your parents on their abstinance only sex ed lecture.

Nature and hormones has an overwhelming way of overriding such teaching in the heat of the moment.

Wow, that's called life, maybe you would have problem handling all those things at once, but they don't. Of course that's why she's being considered for the VP, she can handle it.

I'm amazed at the women saying she should stay home and take care of her family first and then later consider a role in public life. Here's a strong woman dealing with issues that Families face everyday, and still having a career in public service, and she' being criticized for it? Talk about setting women's rights back.

as I see it she's getting so much grief for two reasons
1. She has very consertive beliefs-not feminist enough
2. She's not a man-too feminine (admit it, if she were a man nobody would ever say those 4 things listed above were too much to handle)

A quote of James Dobson, a highly respected member of the christian conservative right. In all respects a highly influential person amongst conservative christians, originally cited by Conquistador:


This is what really drives me nuts about north american fundamentalist christians. They pick and choose their issues and say it with the implication that God has given his stamp of approval. Pointing out hypocrisy is a very prominent thing to do amongst christians.

I spent YEARS being brainwashed by these same types of christians before I said "something doesn't add up here". By the conservative christian (baptist, free methodist, pentecostal, etc.) interpretation of the bible, all sin is equal in the eyes of god. THAT MEANS, kid out of wedlock is as bad (theoretically) as abortion. Both are sin, both are enough to keep you out of heaven (if you don't give your life up to god and become born again).

But conveniently, these partisan christian groups choose to overlook that and say "well, that's human".

It's just annoying how people use God to back up their own leanings. Because what christian is gonna say "no, I think god is wrong" ?

My point is, if you're a conservative christian, you should be equally condemning of children out of wedlock as something like abortion. (If you're doing it by the book, which is what these people do.) So if you would condemn abortion, you should take issue with this pregnancy issue. If you play by the book that is. But no, they see what they want to see, they find bad what they want to find bad, and say that's what God wants (ok a bit of a stretch, but in this sense I mean). I think the whole issue is ridiculous, but again, I'm also pro-choice.

Furthermore, I think it's sad that the election can be turned into a one-issue thing. Arguing about abortion (I have read accounts from people who are basically swayed by this issue alone) is just a smokescreen for issues that affect the vast majority of people and are therefore more important.

In my previous posts I stated I would not vote for Edwards for similar reasons...his WIFE and CHILDREN needed him more than I needed him to be President.

To me, meeting and putting the needs of your FAMILY first trumps all.

It is unlikely that what she is going through are things people go through everyday...maybe individually, but not in tandem. And we have no idea if she can "handle it" or not. Perhaps she can, but can her children? One that is only 4 months old and special needs? A pregnant teen and her other 3 children?

Now if they came out and clearly stated that her hubby was going to be a devoted stay at home Dad, I would feel better about it.

People can dress it up anyway they want and call it antifeminist, but someone needs to raise children, and non family (nannies, daycare) simply does not have the same impact. IMO at least one parent should be around consistantly while a child is not in school or if struggling IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. And regardless of the fact Bristol got preggers at 16, she is not an adult, and will really need parents at this difficult and challenging time.

Palin's remarks


Explicit meaning they'll be showing pornos? "Alright class, this is fairly straightforward, it's just a simple game of monkey see, monkey do. OK? Now you try."

I think Palin is pretty impractical and irresponsible if she supports that. I mean come on, look at Ireland. That's all you need to go on to know how effective such a policy would be. Jasus, young preggos everywhere. They are also generally undereducated when it comes to the spread of STD's, and how that even works.

By this logic, shouldn't all candidates be single? How can becoming Pres/VP be in any way good for your family?

I thought it was generally accepted that running for office is just one following their thirst for power. I never understand why morals play such a big role in american politics, since (again, generally) most politicians have some scandal going on.

To change the subject a bit, do people think the McCain camp may not be secretly happy the convention has been essentially scrapped?

Did the hurricane provide a lucky break to spare McCain having to try to compete with Obama as a speaker? And keep the least popular President of all time and his controversial V.P. off the podium?

humm???

scrapped? I don't think so.

not literally. But I read that as there were essentially no speakers yesterday the crowds big activity was button trading and collecting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080902/pl_nm/...bE.FSTZ7XOs0NUE

I personally don't give a crap about whether her daughter is pregnant. I find it amusing, but not by any means a qualifier or disqualifier for the role (however, the judgement in choosing the names "Track", "Trig" and "Piper", that concerns me...). What I do find as cause for concern, however, was a thought expressed recently by Andrew Sullivan:


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...tter-arrog.html

Yes, however these things are simply spun according to whatever is convenient politically. One thing which I would like to point out, is that I have noticed that people are chronically making Obama vs. Palin comparisons which are completely misleading as he is the presidential candidate and she is the vice-presidential one.
Secondly, what she knows now is irrelevant. A character like Cheney certainly has in depth knowledge of what Sullivan refers to in his post, yet I don't remember him garnering any more deference or respect from his political opponents because of it. Once again, this is simply going to be spun for convenience depending on which side of the fence you sit on.