It feels a little like shooting fish in a barrel, or piling on, or something of the sort, but there is just so many places to go with this Sarah Palin pick as McCain's VP pick, that I just don't know where to begin. And I just can't leave it alone, because some of it is too glaring. A few random thoughts:
1) Alright, I understand it, she's your precious little daughter, and we want to protect her privacy. So the question is, when she's 5 months pregnant and due in, when is that, oh, election time, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU ACCEPTING A BID TO BECOME VP KNOWING IT WILL BECOME A PUBLIC SPECTACLE????? Maybe you don't support your daughter that much after all.
2) Why are we hearing this stuff from Palin and McCain that her daughter has "chosen" to have the baby and will marry the father (at some undetermined time - 10 years from now?)? In their view, having a child is not a choice, it's a crime to abort! Why use the language of her having a choice when they feel that this choice is akin to taking your live child and drowning it in a bathtub. They don't lionize their children by saying "she's chosen not to kill her 3 year old child after losing her job and going on welfare." By suggesting that a choice exists, they totally contradict their language on abortion equalling murder.
3) So both McCain and Palin are running on this whole family values thing, like liberals are anti-American because they suggest that women can do equal work to men, and that they can choose to do so even after having children and starting families, or waiting to have families if that's what they want. And yet, we have this mother giving birth to a special needs child 5 months ago, her 17 year old daughter has clearly not absorbed much of what her mother has imparted to her on the "family values" front, and yet, Mom is going to decamp 8,000 miles to Washington DC for the next 8 years and leave her 5 month old to the care of who - her 17 year old pregnant and unmarried mother while she goes off to help a 72 year old man with cancer run the free world? Am I missing something here? What family are they valuing if not their own?
4) Finally, this one's too good. The Eagle Forum in Alaska, a right wing organization dedicated to ensuring traditional American values in our politicians, sent a questionnaire to Alaskan Gubernatorial candidates back in 2006. Gov. Palin was kind enough to respond. You can read her responses here on the Eagle Forum's website, but here's some goodies.
Regarding a woman's right to choose, Palin responded: "I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life." good thing her daughter has "chosen" to have the child.
Regarding support for "abstinence-only" education instead of explicit sexual education, talk of contraceptive and things of the like: "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Obviously her daughter heard nothing of them either.
Regarding allowing parents to opt out of school curriculum's that they morally disagree with, such as, well, Sex-ed: "Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught." I'm telling you, it's getting harder and harder not to think that this came from a Saturday Night Live skit or an Onion article at this point. I mean, obviously, she opted her daughter out, to these results.
There is so much more to talk about, it's almost not fair. The funniest thing is, most people won't care. They'll support her for whatever idiotic reason that they do, despite the fact that had she been a Democrat, they'd vilify her as a closet lesbian spear chucker who doesn't shave and wants to burn society's bras, imprison it's men, and establish worldwide female hegemony.
Don't worry, there will be more, I mean, she's only been the candidate for 3 days. But like I said, it won't matter, most Republicans would rather vote for a 3rd term for George Bush than vote for any Democrat (and this is essentially what they'll be doing when they vote for McCain).
4 comments:
You missed the real laugher in the questionaire. Her insistence that the "If the Pledge of Allegiance is good enough for the Founding Fathers, it is good enough for her". Or words to that effect.
The Founding Fathers did not come up with the pledge. Written later in the late 1800s, it was not until the the 1940s that is was made the official pledge by Congress. But then the real kicker is "under God" was not added until sometime during Ike's first term in the 1950s.
I know we cannot expect our leaders to know everything about everything. But when they wrap themselves up in the flag as Sarah has obviously done, she should know the history of that flag and the sacred words she clutches so close to her heart.
Hey mrmacrum
I saw that too. I was laughing with my wife about that one. You see, she probably thinks that it was the equivelent to a founder who came up with that - the "under God" was added by McCarthyites to try and show up them Godless communists.
As I said, though, it's just shooting fish in a barrel. There's so much to go at, I don't know where to start and stop. Some of the other things about her "pregnancy" are too interesting as well. Read www.electoral-vote.com for a discussion on how she gave "birth" 5 months ago.
Great post, Dude. What a terrible pick Palin is.
I looked up the website you provided, www.electoral-vote.com, and I was astounded to read why a lot of people believed that Sarah Palin's "birth" was actually her daughter's child. Here is part of what they said:
"To quell persistent rumors on the Internet that Sarah Palin's new baby was really her daughter's, Palin has announced that her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin, is now 5 months pregnant and plans to marry the baby's father, her 18-year-old boyfriend, Levi Johnston. The rumors got started when Palin behaved in a way that raised eyebrows in April. She was in Texas for a meeting of the National Governors' Association when she began leaking amniotic fluid and having contractions. Although she knew the baby had Down syndrome and was a month premature to boot, she didn't go to a local hospital. Instead she gave her planned speech later in the day as scheduled and then caught a flight from Dallas to Seattle where she took another flight to Anchorage. Then she and her husband drove 45 minutes to a hospital in her home town where the baby was born.
Premature babies, especially those with Down syndrome, need special care. Palin could have gone to a world-class hospital in Dallas, Seattle, or Anchorage, any of which would have been fully equipped to handle eventualities. Instead she chose to fly 8 hours (without telling the airlines she was in labor) and go to a village hospital probably not equipped as well as hospitals in any of the three big cities. The rumorbarons couldn't believe that any 44-year-old mother of four children would take such a risk, so the assumption was that she wasn't pregnant. Combined with the fact that Bristol had been out of school for five months, the rumor started that Sarah was covering up for Bristol.
But the story raises other questions, for example:
Is it responsible for a woman in labor to fly for 8 hours with the risk of giving birth on board?
What should be done to reduce unwanted teenage pregnancies and are these techniques effective?
Is sex-ed entirely the job of the parents or do the schools and government have a role? If so, what?
If schools should not have a role, what do you do about parents who don't do their job properly? . . ."
You just can't make stuff like up. WWW.dailykos.com there is a serious discussion that McCain may be forced to drop Palin from the ticket as more damaging stuff arises.
Keep up the good posts, Dude.
Dennis Wilkins
The Guest PD Blogger
god...you guys are simply awful. When have you ever posed these family questions to any male candidates? Did any of you criticize Jon Edwards for starting or continuing his campaign when his wife was diagnosed with cancer? I wont bother searching for PD Dude's criticism of that being insensitive to Elizabeth Edwards.
And gee, Dennis...I generally agree with your analysis more than anything Dude ever posts...but what other positions/jobs do you then beleive woman of special needs children, or that have big families, shouldn't be taking on?? At least that's the implication I get from your post.
I mean, I get it...you guys dont like her politics and you dont think she is qualified...fine, just stick to that line of reasoning and make your case.
Post a Comment