The "media's treatment of Palin and her family this week has been the quintessence of hypocrisy, the vilest form of the politics of personal destruction." So I argue in my Rocky Mountain News media column today.
Based on e-mail I've gotten from some readers, it's clear that some people have so much emotional investment in their hatred of Palin that they can't read very well. So to be clear, and to amplify a point I explicitly made in the last paragraph of the column, it's legitimate and necessary for the media to ask questions about her public policy positions (including those on sex education), her record in public office, her political philosophy, whether her experience makes her well-qualified to be VP or President, and so on.
And BTW, astute readers will spot a typo: "Ronald Reagan's daughter Nancy Davis" should be "Ronald Reagan's daughter with Nancy Davis."
UPDATE. An excerpt from a reader e-mail:
I do not always agree with your stance on the issues of the day, but I am with you 150% on this issue. I wonder if you saw the op-ed page political cartoon in the Denver Post on Thurs. Sept. 9th ? As the father of an adult special needs individual, slightly older than Bristol Palin, but just as pregnent and just as unwed at this time, I was incensed at the sleeze demonstrated by this portrayal of a McCain/Palin "shotgun wedding" along with the caption undrneath the cartoon. What sent me completely over the edge however was the hand at the left of the frame holding a sign announcing that Bristol Palin is five months pregnant along with two elephant heads whispering and giggling. How low will the media go and is there anything that ordinary people like myself can do to put a stop to such behavior? I know firsthand the emotional toll that an unexpected pregnancy is exerting on our family, (she and her boyfriend have our unyielding support) but more importantly on our daughter. Here in the Palin family's case, the entire world is hearing all the details. How sad to put a confused and frightened seventeen year old through this addttional stress. My dissapointment with the Denver paper is such that I plan to cancel my subscription next week. After I saw this lowdown smear at this innocent minor, I drove down to McCain headquarters and offered my services to the campaign and made a donation to the McCain 2008 campaign. As you can see, I have been touched both emotionally and personally by what is passing for journalism in this election year.
And vice versa.
P.S. Yes, this clip has been viewed more than 2 million times already!
Considering the easy defenses of her personal life that arise from her political views, I don't think complaints about the media coverage are legitimate.
A truly skilful campaign would treat the attacks on Palin as the softballs they are, and use them to demonstrate how responsible she's really being (she kept Trig, she's married to her husband, Bristol is marrying her boyfriend, they all have jobs or are continuing their education...I'd say they're responding about perfectly to unexpected pregnancies, excepting Sarah's mystifying plane flights--why not riposte with that?).
More moral equivalency. First, David's impression was based on his e-mails. Secondly, those smearing Palin based on lies is just not the same as those supporting her because she's being smeared based on lies. One side clearly has the moral high ground here, and it isn't the people smearing her based on lies.
It isn't much. But there it is.
Clearly, anyone using lies to smear someone never has the moral high ground. However, you cant say that "one side" has it. If anything, there has been much more of this nonsense in regards to Obama than Palin.
1. WRT Palin's speech, it was nothing that wasn't expected. In my own nitpicking way, I have to say her accent bothered me (like a cross of the nasty of Megan Mullaly with the flat affect of Frances McDormand in Fargo). Not overwhelming, just offputting. Anyway, that's not substantive, just my own personal quirk. Moving on, it was well-delivered, great for the base (that evil media), but it hit too many wrong notes in the second half for me. Too much sarcasm (or wit, if Jim Jindgren), not enough substance. I'd trust her to deal with an oil pipeline now, not so much to deal with the leader of Turkmenistan. Or go to their funeral.
2. Watching McCain's speech, I realized that my initial observation about Palin was correct- she is a resource drain on the McCain campaign. A good speechwriter can make an awful public speaker look good (see Bush, GHW, 1988). We know McCain is not a scintillating public speaker. And yet he had an bland (at best) speech. Why do you think that is? Because all the resources went into Palin's speech. The same way all the McCain campaign resources (in terms of money, rapid response, news cycles, and, most importantly, time) are going into trying to control the Palin narrative.
3. If someone had told you, at the tail end of the Regan revolution, the following two pieces of information, would you have believed them?
a) The "family values" majority would exercise such control over the Republican party that they could force the GOP Presidential candidate to place on his ticket an inexperienced ideologue who opposes all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
b) The GOP convention would stage a wild welcome for the unmarried pregnant teenage daughter of the VP candidate and her sullen boyfriend.
My mind was boggled (boggling?). Not so much about the hypocrisy, but about the tension between the uncompromising stands on abortion and the sacrifice the GOP has made on almost all the other core "family values" issues (see also Mary Cheney's daughter).
In a way, I understand this- for the truly committed, abortion is murder, and everything else is secondary. But didn't this originally arise in a context of preserving families and core morality? What's going on here?
4. I disagree with Kopel's statement, in a way. The media has nothing else to go on. This is the same as saying "Negative Campaign Ads are bad." Well, sure. But they're still out there. Everyone knows what happens in modern politics (and, heck, politics going back to the founders). Palin entered the fray in her glass house, and people are throwing stones. We can say it's awful &horrible . . . and completely predictable. Moreover, because she is being kept away from the press, the press doesn't have anything from her to go on. As for criticizing her policies . . . what policies? Has she announced them? Did I miss them? Does she have any *national* ones? Has she figured out what the VP can do for Alaska yet? Inquiring minds would love to criticize her policies, when they come out.
5. I still think that the Palin pick could end out coming out neutral, or even be net positive. Media storms are fleeting, and today's scandals are tomorrows bird-cage liners. If Palin has a good debate, and looks polished when (if?) she hits the campaign trail and actually goes unscripted, and provided no major scandals are uncovered, I think she holds appeal, especially for the base GOP. I've talked (fer real, offline) with some younger GOP types, and they're real enthusiastic. But they're all men. The women? Not so much. YMMV.
6. On a personal note, I hope the GOP loses the Presidential race. I think it would be good for the GOP. Currently, it is controlled by the Bush faction-- as a fiscal conservative, I cannot stand Bush Republicans. This is not just an issue of branding- this is a core problem. Just as the Democrats became unhealthy during the 1980s, I think the GOP is unhealthy right now. We are best served by having two healthy parties compete for our votes. Trying to distinguish between the "Tax &Spend" Democrats and the "Don't Tax (but tax your kids) &Spend" GOP based on a few cultural wedge issues isn't doing any of us a favor.
Although it does allow us to come up with creative names to call each other on teh intertubez.
David, your first point is that the media did not make similar criticisms of Clinton after he selected Gore hastily. Then you point out that Gore was well known to the media and it should be said to the rest of the country (at least as much as someone like Pawlenty is). This would be hypocritical if the two situations were parallel. As you point out, much more was known about Gore than Palin. This seems to undermine your claim of equivalence. Clinton could have been relying on publicly available information when he chose Gore. In Palin's case, little was known about her by the public and so it seems sensible to criticize McCain for not getting to know about her more himself. The charge is not so much that he selected her without meeting her a hundred times. The charge is that he selected her without knowing anything about her. This may be wrong, but it seems reasonable given how little McCain researched her himself and how little public information was available at the time he made the selection.
You next compare Chelsea and Bristol. Again, I question the equivalence. Chelsea was 12 years old when Clinton ran for president and people were making fun of her appearance. John McCain himself (something you fail to mention) made fun of her appearance. This hardly seems comparable to the media's criticisms of the actions of a 17 year old for getting pregnant. One is criticism of a preteen for something she cannot control. The other is criticism of teen for something she could control. Now I would agree that both are far from the sorts of things we should be worrying about. But that does not make the media hypocritical. It makes it childish. You know, just like all of us who pay attention to it.
Saturday Night Live was pulling Chealsea Clinton jokes off the air due to complaints from the Clinton's because she was "off limits", no matter that her parents dragged in front of the lights every chance they got.
Even when Chelsea Clinton, as a professionally employed, graduate degree holding adult, was giving campaign speeches on her mothers behalf, it was sacrosanct to ask her any questions about anything, particularly her families "private life". She was after all, only the daughter of the candidate.
However, it was okay for the press to hound the Bush twins every chance they got when they were in college, and well, acting like college kids. Not many Chelsea Clinton drinking pictures out there, are there? Of course I am sure she stayed in her dorm room at Stanford for 4 years.
The media, and certain left wingers have transferred BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) onto Palin.
The same idea applies to the Palin family. They have a lot of celebrity gossip-like material to mine. The rest of the candidates apparently don't. McCain and his wife have seven children among them. I have not heard one word of gossip about them. I am guessing that they are rather boring.
Frankly, I think that's more sexist than anything else I've seen in the whole of the sordid Palin media stories.
What bizarro world do you live in? Apparently one where Rush Limbaugh doesn't dominate the airwaves.
No one said a peep about Gore because he had been vetted by the media. The media went after Palin not because she was "not properly vetted" by McCain, but because McCain made his choice without allowing the media the chance to decide if she was an acceptable choice -- the media never got the chance to tell America what to think of Palin before she stepped onto the podium with McCain the day after Obama's acceptance speech; McCain did an end run around the media with Palin, and the medis struck back.
That's an, um, interesting take. Another way of putting it is that McCain did an end run around the "American People" (or, at least those that reside in the lower 49 states). I'm something of a political junkie, and while before McCain's announcement I could tell you that Palin was the female governor of Alaska and one of the rising stars in the GOP, I couldn't tell you much else (I know, for example, a great deal more about Pawlenty and Jindal than I do about Palin, even now). Are you saying that only the McCain campaign and Palin could tell us about her?
If Palin were a liberal Dem, does anyone think we would be hearing about her inability to care for her family and simultaneously, hold office? Or any of the other nonsense being bandied about? I can't believe that a pregnant teenager has somehow become fair game for snide remarks that purport to be about grown-up politics.
I don't suppose those on the far left will see anything in Gov. Palin but Dick Cheney in drag. Forget all the rhetoric from the high-minded liberals about gender equality. Undecided voters can see how the hard-core left treats anyone who dares to disagree with the party line as some kind of gender-traitor.
On some of the left blogs, I see any number of posts from voting Democrats, expressing frustration and anger about the way Gov.Palin is being treated. I would guess that Sen. Obama is among them. I hope so anyway.
There was a very apt political cartoon in our local paper. Palin is working a crowd, shaking hands. Standing to one side is a harridan wearing a NOW t-shirt. She waving a sign "Iron My Clothes."
True.
Introducing her, McCain sold us on the idea that Palin was just like us, and could relate to our concerns, because he described her as "a union member and is married to a union member and understands the problems, the hopes and the values of working people, knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments and health care and the cost of gasoline and groceries; a standout high school point guard; a concerned citizen who became a member of the PTA, ... a devoted wife and mother of five..."
Then Palin expanded on McCain's theme, inviting us to look closely at her marriage and family life -- by implication just like our marriage and family life -- by revealing personal details of her marriage (telling us that day was her 20th anniversary of marriage to Alaskan, oil production operator, snowmachine champion, high school sweetheart, blessing-producer, her personal hero Todd), and her children (five blessings including 9/11-enlisting, 9/11-deploying, brave infantryman Track, and beautiful baby boy Trig).
Bristol's pregnancy would have eventually been manifest.
August 29 would have been the perfect opportunity for her to complete her discussion of her family by noting that Bristol would make her and Todd proud grandparents come Inauguration Day. Pregnancy is one secret that doesn't go away; assuming she continues to use her kids as campaign props Bristol's belly would have spilled the beans by election day.
Delaying the announcement did not favor the campaign. Bristol's pregnancy is a legitimate news story. The first woman VP would also be the first grandmother VP. Moreover, people crave irony -- that's the point of the man bites dog story. Here, Palin advocates abstinence education to prevent early, unplanned children; Bristol demonstrates that it is no bar to pregnancy.
The speech-making, water-breaking story makes Palin look tough and heroic. Is this not a message the campaign wants to send?
The word "ahistorical" comes to mind...
If Palin were a liberal Dem, does anyone think we would be hearing about her inability to care for her family and simultaneously, hold office? Or any of the other nonsense being bandied about?
Probably not. The victims of Republican and Democratic policies are different, so the rhetoric of power utilized by each are going to be different. They have (some) different concerns, and the critical targets are shaped around the thrust of party identity. Everybody does it, it's the glue that holds the gears of progress together, and comes as no surprise.
However, you have to ask yourself whether Palin as a "liberal Dem" [sic] would have to endure criticism just as superficial, and I think history tells us that Karl Rove, Tim Griffin, Roger Stone, etc. would be more than happy to come up with some kind of character assassination. Is this really in question?
Still, there is a bit of a double standard here. Politicians love to drag out their kids to show what wonderful family types they are, and how great their kids are, and so on. So the question I have for DK and others is where that line is. Beyond having a nice family photograph if they want, shouldn't they just shut up about it?
If it's not OK to criticize a candidate because her son is, say, a high-school dropout, is it OK for a candidate to get credit for a daughter who is #1 in her class in medical school?
unfortunately, the media no longer acts as a surrogate for the American people --- back when I was growing up, news divisions were considered "public service", now they are profit centers....and the news agenda is driven by the cable news networks that exist only to make money.
When did you start learning "a great deal more" about Pawlenty and Jindal? If it was as a result of their names being floated/discussed as serious potential VP picks, then you're reinforcing my point.
What I'm saying is that the vicious/sexist mainstream media attacks on Palin occurred because she hadn't received the media "seal of approval" as an acceptable VP pick before the announcement. Had she been "floated" by the McCain campaign in advance (i.e., if her name had been leaked days in advance as being one of the "final three", as the Obama campaign had done) the media would not have responded the way it did when the announcement finally came.
No, actually I knew a great deal more about Jindal and Pawlenty because they appear on shows I watch, and are part of the national political debate. Palin, before this, wasn't. I think you have your causal effects reversed; it is not that the press 'picks' candidates; insted, the campaign does one of two things:
1. Picks a candidate who has been on the national stage for a while, and has already been under so much press scrutiny that it is unlikely there are any surprises.
2. If they pick a candidate that is not as well known, they vet the heck out of the, AND they float the trial balloon early so that the press can start digging and if there's smoke (or, goodness, a fire) it comes out before the selection.
Running for President tends to be an exercise in risk-aversion, especially when it comes to picking a running mate. This was completely predictable.
If Palin were a liberal Dem, does anyone think we would be hearing about her inability to care for her family and simultaneously, hold office? Or any of the other nonsense being bandied about?
If Palin were a liberal Dem and had a unmarried teenage daughter, I assure you it would be on Fox news 24/7. And if Obama had an unmarried teenage daughter, well I think Sean Hannity's head would explode.
In all fairness, I have enjoyed watching Bill O'Reilly's position spin more than Linda Blair's head in the Exorcist switching from
a) unwed teen pregnancies are the downfall of America and a sign of awful parenting that I need to pontificate upon to
b) unwed teen pregnancies are a gift from god and none of the media's business.
Well.. I'm not so sure. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure they didn't expect or plan things to work out like this. But in the end, so far it looks like they've had a lot of good luck. Sure, there's negative stuff floating around, but I suspect that most of that is being taken with the proverbial grain of salt. That's certainly an advantage..
'mrfxx writes: I don't recall Dave Kopel defending Chelsea Clinton's "right to privacy" when she was referred to as the "national dog" since she seems to have failed some cuteness standard growing up...'
Why, I bet mrfxx ran Google and FACTIVA searches and couldn't find a single hit for "dave-kopel chelsea-clinton national-dog"! Not one!
1992, and a nation turned its lonely eyes to Dave Kopel, expectng him to chivalrously defend Miss Clinton's privacy and honour. Yet we have no public record of him ever blogging about this throughout the entire First Clinton Presidency. Therefore it didn't happen.
yet, given the importance of energy/oil in this campaign, you'd think that the governor of Alaska would be someone that the news shows you watch would want to talk to....
Keep up the politics of personal destruction. It's doing such wonders for Obama, with his poll lead cut in half in less then a week after the smears started.
Huseein is the talentless artifact of the same media and the other masters of the democrat party, including organized labor and, no offense fellas, plaintiffs' attorneys. They have too much invested in this empty suit to not take every shot they can.
You want poor performers in this situation? Look no further than the super-delegates. When Hussein loses big, as I think he will, and, maybe, there are Republican gains in the Congress, the democrat centrists will realize they've been had again by the lunatic fringe. It was the job of the ssuper-delegates to see this didn't happen again.
But, the media? No, they are slime, have been and will be.
The convention might have something to do with it.
MartyA,
You wrote . . . oh, you wrote Hussein. I thought you had something substantive to post.
Hillary can appeal to "soccer moms," but criticism is shoveled Gov. Palin's way if she even mentions "hockey moms." And 0's kids can fend for themselves while both mom & dad work, and that's OK too, but... who's going to take care of Vice President Palin's kids??!??!?
The hypocrisy of the liberals is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Sarah Palin clearly loves all her kids -- so the libs just have to find something wrong there, but when a Democrat mom is proud of her kid, it's totally normal.
The same can be said of Obama. You'll notice I'm not holding my breath....
I asked "If Palin were a liberal Dem, does anyone think we would be hearing about her inability to care for her family and simultaneously, hold office?"
Some of the loudest screams about Palin are coming from women who have supported the idea that a woman can simultaneously have a family and a career. Suddenly, a woman's place is in the home. Or somewhere. Anywhere actually, but on the Republican ticket. I think that demonstrates the hypocrisy of those self-identified liberals suddenly aware of how children need their mothers home every day. I also assert it proves the vacuity of their positions.
As for Palin's young daughter, if Obama had a pregnant unmarried daughter and anyone tried to somehow propose a link between the young woman's pregnancy and Obama's fitness for high office, i'd be the first to express disgust and annoyance. Like any number of self-identified Democrats are doing. It's sleazy and unnecessary. it says much more about those engaging in such tactics than it does about the Palin family.
BTW, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannitty don't represent me. What they do is provide a price structure for advertisers on Fox. In fact, they both somewhat remind of no one less than Joe Biden.
Why don't feminists just say "She is against abortion so I hate her." Or even, to misquote the song, "I really hate her. I'll think of a reason later." At least there would be some intellectual honesty in that statement.
Having said all that, every time Maureen Dowd or Andrea Mitchell slip something catty or vicious into their news/commentary, I suspect another undecided voter thinks that just maybe McCain/Palin isn't really the End of the World as We Know it.
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
I wonder what David Kopel has to say about the politics of personal destruction regarding that?
But they're so demented that they don't realize that they're creating a huge backlash. Palin now has a 58% favorable approval rating, higher than THE ONE's, and it's largely due to their attempts to smear a genuinely decent, good woman.
They can't help themselves. And like the boy who cried wolf, every subsequent lying scandal they try to pin on her will mean less and less, and they'll become more and more inconsequential.
Morons.
Speaking of Biden, of course.
But you have to look pretty hard to find something on them.
Sarah Palin, and Bristol's pregnancy in particular, does not contradict any central narratives of the left. It confirms our belief that, despite all the family-values talk, Republican kids have as much sex as Democratic kids. It confirms our belief that, because of this, all kids should be given comprehensive sex education, not abstinence-only. It confirms our belief that, if Bristol's "decision" is to be praised, then all women should have the right to make that decision for themselves, not with the government's help. It confirms our belief that, when it comes to women in politics, Democrats want to get women elected but also want those women to be qualified as individuals, whereas when Republicans want to nominate women, they turn around and pick up anyone (Harriet Miers, Sarah Palin) who happens to be available and looks nice on camera. So my leftist head isn't exactly spinning because of any displaced narratives on this one.
Second, and maybe I really am missing something here, but if someone could point me to some horrific coverage of Bristol that I've missed, please do so. The press coverage that I've seen has basically (1) reported the fact of the pregnancy and upcoming marriage and (2) reported Sarah Palin's positions on issues relating to sex, pregnancy, abortion, etc. I haven't seen any personal attacks on Bristol at all. So if the complaint is basically that the pregnancy is being reported at all, I have to say: really? Let's consider two facts here: (1) Pregnancy is a visually obvious condition (eventually) and (2) the families of candidates are always, at the very least, photographed (if Bristol were absent from photographs, that would be obvious and conspicuous too). Supposedly McCain knew about the pregnancy, Sarah Palin knew about the pregnancy, and they were all fine with it when they made the decision to put her in the VP slot. Since neither Palin nor McCain is an idiot, they saw this coming.
Finally, and I realize the deluge of comments that will follow this, but here's the thing: it is Democrats, and not Republicans, that have been arguing for years that the personal lives of candidates are nobody's business. It is Republicans, not Democrats, that have focused much more on personal character than policy preferences. Republicans nominate war heroes and hockey moms, and the guy you'd like to have a beer with; Democrats once nominated an incredibly intelligent man with great moderate policies who happened to not be able to keep it in his pants. And when we did, the press and especially the Right made no bones about publishing that information to the world as often as possible. I know--so please don't tell me--that Bill Clinton was the candidate/President and Bristol Palin is not. But I also know that the press scoffed when some on the left dared to suggest how humiliating it must have been for Hillary and Chelsea to go through what they did during the Clinton years. How many blow job jokes do you think Chelsea heard in the hallways senior year? And I know the Right likes to think of Hillary as a cold-hearted bitch, but I actually think she has feelings and was probably devastated and humiliated not only to be cheated on but to have it so publicly debated without any sympathy to her. The Clinton scandals were always, after all, about what he had supposedly done to the country--not to her.
And since I know many readers of this blog are already going to think this post is ridiculous, I may as well go ahead and say that Monica Lewinsky was not much older than Bristol Palin. 4 years, to be exact. The choices they made were different, obviously: having an affair with a married man is different than having sex with your high school boyfriend. But nonetheless, as someone who was there not long ago, I know that the sexual decision-making abilities of a 17-year-old girl and a 21-year-old girl are not all that different, and that both of these girls made decisions they may have later come to regret and never thought would become public. But why did the Republicans and the media make the Clinton scandals public? Oh that's right, in the words of Newt Gingrich: "because we can."
So I don't feel all that bad for Sarah Palin and her family. Actually, as others have pointed out, I think the press coverage of this is much more respectful than the shit storm that would have erupted if Chelsea Clinton had gotten pregnant (hell, it would still be a shit storm now, and she's 28 years old). I also think that, for whatever reason, coverage of the Bush twins would have been worse, since the press did seem to have a weird fascination with them (and especially Jenna) for awhile that seems to have abated now.
I guess my main two points are these: (1) If you want elections to be about policy positions and not about personal affairs, then practice what you preach, and if you don't practice what you preach, don't be surprised when it comes back around to you. And (2), if your family wants absolute privacy, then running for national office is probably not the best career choice to make.
O, and if you want to talk about the UN again, please start by explaining why it is OK for the US to do whatever it pleases, but not for Russia. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer to have them both constrained a bit, if only for the sake of consistency.
* Just so that there are no misunderstandings: It's her politics that's creepy. I haven't seen enough of her in action to be able to comment on her otherwise.
Angus, did you start that fake banned book list too?
In fact, it is the continuing media, Daily Kos and DU drumbeat that will not accept the plain fact that Sarah Palin has a nice, normal American family.
See, it's OK to be proud of your family. Obama is, and he talks about it. The Clintons have mentioned their family, including Chelsea, plenty. But Bush isn't allowed to be proud of his family by liberals, and Palin can't be either. Because there must be something wrong there... Right, Chief? Great double standard, there. Pure hypocrisy.
According to Dave3L's definitive pronouncement, Governor Palin "lacks any actual experience, knowledge or training."
Better get up to speed on wills and trusts, son. The corporate world will make mincemeat out of you.
"To be fair, Sarah Palin = Antichrist isn't that far off the mark."
Troll, much?
Other people chewing out Dave3L? Puh-leeze! Refresh my memory- are you claiming that Jimmy Carter is racist because he said "black boy" or "colored boy" today? For you to lecture others, although your modus operandi, is faintly ridiculous.
Comedy= Judd Apatow Flick
High Comedy= Charlton Heston as Mexican Federale in Touch of Evil
Sublime Conedy= Smokey lecturing others on lawyerly reasoning and the corporate world
No counter to the information. Check.
Counter-accusation of lying. Check.
Hello there, Karl Rove!
I've never bought this argument.
Much as third parties cannot waive the rights of other people, only their own, parents cannot waive the right of their children to be left alone. They can brag about them (much as you can endow other people with benefits not owed to them), but that is far from permitting others to besmirch them.
I don't think that parents can ever waive the right of their children to be free from national-level scrutiny that is a direct cause of that parent's actions. It is, first and foremost, the moral right of that child.
-Make sure the press criticizes Hillary's personal life and ties it to her character.
-Make sure the press questions Edwards' ability to run for office with a sick wife.
-Make sure Matt Drudge mocks Chelsea Clinton's looks and drool over what might be going on in her bedroom.
* She's not claiming that she always opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere", in the end the earmark was spent for other things.
* So the jet didn't sell on Ebay, it was posted that's all she said. She literally said "I put the jet on Ebay", not "I sold the jet on Ebay"
WTF is the matter with you and your lies?
I disagree with you completely. There is a complex calculus that goes into running for office, and the calculus changes depending on the level of office you run for. If a parent does not ant their precious snowflakes to be involved in a national campaign, they *shouldn't run for office*. I say this half with snark, a quarter with sadness, and a quarter with indignity. It is the way of life of modern campaigns; while we can say it is good, or bad, (to borrow a sports saying) it is what it is. To expect any different is to show poor judgment by the principals involved.
IOW, we can say it is horrible that the press is concerned with candidates' sex lives, and that may be true. But if you've been catting around recently, you probably shouldn't run. We can say the same (unfortunate) thing about children- and it applies not just to politicians, but to celebrities of all stripes. It is also true, as pointed out above, that those who 'employ' their children will receive heightened scrutiny; if you look at the world of celebrities, there are those that make much to do about their parenting, and those that seek to keep their children under wraps (guess who I approve more of?). I think this story would have received a lot of play no matter what, but given that Palin has been consistently held out as "Mother of Five" with the children appearing at GOP photo ops, this was bound to happen.
We all know exactly why Angus is desperately trying to hang the "she lied! she lied!" label on Governor Sarah Palin. Here's a hint:
"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again... [shaking his bony finger at the country] I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time. Never! These allegations are false!"
Clinton looked the country in the eye, and he lied. Then, Clinton lied in a deposition and got caught, and the Left can not get over it. They just can't MoveOn. They are too filled with hatred.
Recall that Starr was asked to investigate Clinton; he declined, and referred it to the court -- which sent it right back to him. Starr then sent Clinton a subpoena, which Clinton adamantly resisted. But Clinton was eventually forced to testify under oath... and he lied, and he lied and he LIED.
Clinton was subsequently impeached, and then stripped of his law license, for lying under oath. And ever since, the liberals have been desperately trying to prove that everyone else routinely lies, just like Clinton. They can not admit that lying under oath is wrong -- if a Democrat does the lying. [It's all about sex, see? Lying under oath about sex is A-OK.] Now, all they ever do is arm-wave about any Republican who poses a direct threat to them.
Nice try, Angus, and thanx for playing with the big boys.
First, a reasoned post. Thanks.
I would ask this - does the pregnancy of an unmarried child of any candidate have anything to to do with that candidate's aptitude for office? My sense (and my memory, however distant) is that all 17 year olds are essentially apolitical and pro-sex. Gov. Palin's narrative seems to me to demonstrate that she had the strength of her convictions - whether anyone agrees with those convictions - when confronted with the implications of carrying a Down Syndrome baby to term, and the choice of letting her teenaged daughter assume the responsibilities of parenthood at her age, with all that implies. You may disagree with her stance on women's choice, but you cannot fault her for living with the potential downside of that stance.
"It confirms our belief that, when it comes to women in politics, Democrats want to get women elected but also want those women to be qualified as individuals, whereas when Republicans want to nominate women, they turn around and pick up anyone (Harriet Miers, Sarah Palin) who happens to be available and looks nice on camera." Ah, but of course, "qualified" is defined as politically agreeable with left wing beliefs. A conservative woman is, by definition, unqualified? I can't believe that's what you consciously mean to say, but it sure sounds like what you said. If Palin were liberal in her beliefs. she wouldn't be unqualified; she'd be fresh and exciting.
As for comparing Bill Clinton's serial peccadilloes, you're right insofar as the initial inquiry. When he perjured himself, his sins did become public property. But if anyone is to blame for what the Clinton women had to endure, that person would rightly be the Big Guy himself. He was the one who seemed incapable of keeping the Presidential prerogative off anything in skirts. I don't see a parallel between Clinton's affinity for groping and Palin's 17 year old daughter acting just like the rest of us did at the same age. I think it an important definer of character in our President that he at least make an attempt not to proposition the entire female gender. Granting the young age and naiveté of Monica, Bill Clinton was close to a sexual predator. He wasn't 17 years old at the time. If Gov. Palin were accused of hitting on all the snowmobile mechanics and moose groomers, maybe there would be some similarity. But that does not seem to be the allegation.
I would only mention re: Chelsea that during HRC's campaign last, Chelsea was essentially given a free pass by the media. No questions allowed, despite her widespread use by the campaign as a serious (speaking) advocate, not a poster girl. When the 17 year old and her boyfriend appear on campuses, giving speeches on policy, then perhaps hard questions are appropriate. Until then, they're just a couple of kids in a hard spot.
Re: your main points, I would say 1) Clinton's conduct defined his character. He lied (under oath) and cheated. Palin's conduct is about policy. If you disagree with policy, is she is subject to personal attack? It's not the same as genuine misconduct. It's a difference of opinion. Unless the left wing's opinions came from a burning bush or the entrails of a chicken, a reasonable and moral person could easily vote for either party's candidates.
2) One should not be automatically disqualified from political office because he/she expects that unfounded personal attacks against family as a smear tactic should be condemned. It might be foolish to expect that no such attacks will occur, but it is just wrong to justify them.
Obviously you haven't seen any of the stump speeches since the convention. It is now "sold the jet on Ebay" and "made a profit" (when in fact the state sold it for more than $600,000 less than they bought it).
And if that's the direction you want to go with this, I'll match my honesty against yours (or Palin's) any day of the week.
BTW, back in 1998 I was in favor of Clinton resigning over it.
You misunderstand me. I do not think it is okay. In my perfect universe, politicians would debate substantive issues. Commenters wouldn't concern themselves with Wright or McCain's X Houses. Sex lives would be off limits (so long as it wasn't criminal, and certainly not for fishing expeditions). And, most importantly, kids would be verboten. Pols wouldn't use them as props (pretty exploitive, if you ask me), and the press wouldn't bother them.
But this isn't a perfect world. McCain knows this. Palin knew, or should have known (constructive notice?) this. Either they're not bothered by what this press inquiry will do Palin's kids, they don't feel it would bother them, or they value power over family.
Anyway, even given that, I am not in favor of smears. I don't see headlines in the MSM like "Bristol's a (insert perjorative here)". Instead, the MSM have picked up on her pregnancy and contrasted it with the GOP's positions on, say, abstinence education and traditional attitudes toward premarital sex. This was inevitable; I assume Palin made an informed choice that this scrutiny was acceptable in her family. I would make a different choice, but that's me.
Before there is any piling on, I do not know the dynamics of the Palin family. For all I know, they had a long conversation over mooseburgers and discussed the issues with Bristol and prepped her. I do not know. Nor am I saying that the conduct of children should be reflected on parents (as I mentioned above, in a perfect world they should be kept out of it). But this was inevitable. While I decry any over-the-top smear, I know that the same suspects who have so much concern for the privacy of Bristol would have none if it was a child of a democratic candidate. The same way that democrats who were so concerned about sexual privacy during the Clinton years are overjoyed every time another Republican gets outted (see Larry Craig, see also Mark Foley, see also every other month).
There's a long thread here on a left leaning blog about this issue.
Palin never said anything but "I put it (the jet) on Ebay." Sen. McCain did say in a stump speech that Palin sold the plane for a profit. According to current government accounting standards, the plane was sold for a profit since the cost basis included accelerated depreciation. The plane was put up for auction on Ebay, but eventually sold through an aircraft broker. So what?
Regardless, do you really want people to believe Gov Palin is a liar over this? Why not stick to issues of substance?
I'm beginning to think this stuff IS becoming VC's "regularly scheduled programming." And the trolls love it (on another thread this afternoon, Lindgren approvingly noted VC's hits are higher than ever since the heavy political posting started). Sigh...
Her politics are "creepy"? Is that a Chris Matthews joke (tingly vs creepy), or just an insubstantial criticism?
As far as her daughter's "shotgun" wedding (and we know who will be holding the shotgun) goes, I'll bet if the McCain/Palin ticket loses it will quietly never happen.
Pathetic.
I agree, plus there was a lot more humor in apples and oranges.
Although I probably agree in principle with most of the new-style OP's, this place is getting a little more...harsh? Why not lose the election coverage for awhile?
Just a thought.
Dave Lwrote: A
What did she lie about?
One of the reasons this ends up being a topic is that there is next to zero substance in Palin's stump speech to analyze. So we're left debating whether she and McCain are just fibbing a little or a lot on their biggest applause lines.
Thanks for your equally reasoned response. A few points:
(1) I don't think "qualified" means "leftist" or that a conservative woman would never be qualified. For the record I think it was smart of McCain to pick a woman. But I also think that Senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Olympia Snowe are much more qualified, and still conservative. I don't agree with their policies any more than Palin's, but I do think they are qualified. I felt the same way when Bush picked Harriet Miers, which is why I made the comparison. There are many women jurists (appellate court judges, state supreme court justices) who were much more qualified and also happen to be female. As a woman, I'd like to see as many women as possible achieve higher office, but I think we have to make sure those women are qualified by experience and not by gender. We're lucky enough that both parties have plenty of women to choose from; they don't have to pander.
(2) I don't fault Palin for keeping her personal life in tune with her pro-life stance. I fault her use of the word "decision" because, according to the pro-life position, it is NOT a decision. When you are pregnant, you have a baby. That's the position. So I find it confusing when she refers to either her pregnancy or Bristol's as a decision (choice) that they made.
(3) I realize it may have seemed that I was comparing Clinton's actions to Bristol's, and I wasn't. For the record I don't think Bristol did anything wrong, and I very much think that Clinton did (many times). But in either case, personal matters were made public. My point is that Republicans only really care about familial privacy when it applies to them, and that they are asking for a level of familial privacy that has not been granted to anyone else, and also that Republicans have not been so sensitive to family feelings in the past.
(3) I can't verify this, but I think the media leaves Chelsea alone not out of respect but because she hasn't done anything all that interesting. As I said above, I am certain that if she were pregnant it would be news. If she gets married it will likely be news, if she has a drug problem it will be news, etc. But basically I think she lives in NYC, has a job crunching numbers, and that's pretty much it. For the same reason, the press covered Jenna Bush much more than her twin sister Barbara; Jenna was just more interesting. (Not a slight against Chelsea or Barbara; I like them both).
(4) A candidate has a right to expect that "unfounded personal attacks" be condemned. But this is NOT an unfounded attack. She IS pregnant. It is a TRUE fact, and one that, as I mentioned in my last post, would be difficult to go unnoticed. And I don't think it's personal in the sense that anyone has condemned Sarah Palin as a bad mother (I could be wrong, I don't read all media). It's personal in the sense that people are comparing her life to her policy, but I actually think that's fair. Your personal life should reflect your policy. So if you hold up your Down's Syndrome baby as proof of your pro-life stance (fair), then it's also fair for people to question your abstinence-only policies when your own daughter is pregnant.
Naw, pathetic is asking someone else to do your work for you.
George,
You think having illegitimacy is a good thing?
I don't think the word you're looking for is "creepy".
It's "free".
I "randomly" select MartyA's post, which is in italics...
I see no hypocrisy in the the ultra-left wing media's attack on Palin's daughter.
This is not an argument. It is unsubstantiated, and it is conclusory. How many undecided individuals is this likely to convince? Zero.
Expect more vicious and frequent attacks on all family members and on McCain and Palin.
Ditto my above statement.
Huseein is the talentless artifact of the same media and the other masters of the democrat party, including organized labor and, no offense fellas, plaintiffs' attorneys.
Ditto my above statement. Further, I take issue with your use of the word "Huseein." Yes, it is is middle name, and there is nothing wrong with using it. However, Marty A uses it in a way that suggests we should not vote for Obama b/c of his middle name, which is, of course, associated with Islam. That is disturbing and hate-filled.
They have too much invested in this empty suit to not take every shot they can.
Yet another conclusory statement that proffers no real substantive argument. Whom are "[t]hey?" What is "invested?" Why is he an "empty suit?" What proof exists that "they" will take "every shot" that "they can" simply b/c "they" have something "invested" in him? Are you suggesting that "they" will go to any length -- w/o exception -- to see their opponent lose? If so, what proof can you offer? Mere anecdotal evidence probably won't work, b/c we can all give anecdotal evidence of the other party's faults; what other evidence can you offer?
You want poor performers in this situation? Look no further than the super-delegates. When Hussein loses big,
Will Obama lose big? I would love to see the polls on which you base this conclusory statement.
as I think he will,
Oh, I see! You "think" he will lose big! That must transform your argument from unsubstantiated and non-analytic into well-documented!
and, maybe, there are Republican gains in the Congress,
At least you prefaced this with "maybe!" In any event, please provide us with the poll to support this unsubstantiated suggestion. Also, where is the analysis? Is this over the top argument designed to persuade, or to annoy?
the democrat centrists will realize they've been had again by the lunatic fringe.
Again? When have the democrats nominated someone from the lunatic fringe? Also, what is the lunatic fringe? What makes you say Obama is part of it? What makes you say that the previous democratic nominees been part of it? Argument and analysis, please!
It was the job of the ssuper-delegates to see this didn't happen again.
Again? Ditto my previous statements.
But, the media? No, they are slime, have been and will be.
I am exhausted! Phew! I will conclude by simply stating that this is yet another unsubstantiated, conclusory, non-analytical statement that does not pass for an argument but instead is a mere accusation w/o supportive facts.
In other words, a gullible person may read the above post and think: "the power with which Marty A argues must mean that he is right in his conclusions!" But the probing mind will read the above post and think: "whether or not I agree with Marty A's conclusions, he doesn't make an argument, he offers no support for his blind, rapid-fire accusations, and I have no reason to be convinced by his rant."
That was an enlightening game!
I
Are you saying it's difficult for the left to keep making slurs? Most of them are made up. I don't think the left has had any problem keeping it going all on their own. That's what they excel at. Just go to Kos or Huffington.
Eh,
But they aren't the vast majority of the MSM now then, are they? And, no neither Rove nor Hannity would be salivating. You really should not project.
It's "free".
And all the other 191 countries in the U.N. are what, tyrannies? Like the extreme oppression in England? New Zealand? Belgium? What a great idea it is indeed to hand over diplomacy to the current iteration of the GOP who are so contemptuous of the rest of the world! (e.g., McCain in his stump speech taking a sarcastic pot shot at the French)
T
Who said that about Chelsea, please?
Loki,
You miss the point. Completely.
First of all, Bristol Palin - like all children of public figures - have a moral right to privacy which is separate and distinct from their parents' interests in their "precious snowflakes." I know it's hard to believe, but children are not polyps; they are individuals with their own rights.
It is not only about what Sarah Palin, or Bill Clinton, or Ronald Reagan, may want for their kids. It is about the kids themselves, who need no other sanction.
Bristol Palin is not a "precious snowflake;" she's a HUMAN BEING. You disagree with me because you fail to understand that basic fact.
Second of all, if we follow your logic, we will see that only two types of people ever seek public office: those so hard and uncaring as to not bat an eyelash if their families are slandered, and those with no family to slander. Some of us think that people with close personal ties SHOULD run for public office, and some of us are also aware that there are few, if any, people out there who lack a single skeleton in their closets.
I'm not sure how you went from my saying creepy to "free".
Socialism smells like stinky cheese. It's not my fault it's fermented in civil unrest and garnished with twenty litres of creeping central economic planning.
McCain would know; the Senate really opens the tap wide on the stuff sometimes. You think it's called a swamp because of geography?
I am a Police officer. I am opposed to the legalization of drugs as I see first hand the damage drug use has on society (this is another debate). My parents were against drugs too. I have a brother who is practically on the streets sue to drug use. I have another brother who lost a marriage due to drug use. IT happened in my family, even though most of us are opposed to drugs and their use.
Palin got the story out about her daughter because she had too. If anyone thinks the media would have left it alone had they discovered it by some other means (it would have come out anyway) is dreaming. Remember, when the media didn't have Bristol actually being pregnant, they started reprinting the Daily Kos rumors of the faked pregnancy/switcharoo between her and her mother.
McCain apologized profusely. It is not a pattern with him. Bill Clinton accepted his apology.
When will we get an apology from the Obama campaign and Anderw Sullivan, to name just a very few who need to apologize? When McCain realized what he had done, he felt very bad about it. Seen any of that in the MSM or Democratic Party? I would not hold my breath waiting. You seem to expect Republicans to be 100% perfect, 100% of the time and if they are not, all Republicans are fair game. Interesting. However, you certainly do not apply the same standards to the Democrats. Republican know they are not perfect. When they do something wrong, they apologize, by and large, or resign. When do Democrats ever do either? And, before you start Democrats seem pretty darn judgmental to me, only about different things. So, don't give me the line about Republicans being hyppocrits. Not as long as Al Gore still rides around in his private jet and his SUV and is spending $500.00 a month to heat his swimming pool in just one of his mansions.
At this point, I'd be happy if all the posters on VC just adopted Orin Kerr's philosophy of policing trolls. I cheered like I was on the convention floor (either convention, pick yer poison) when I read his warning a few days ago: "I'll leave comments open for now, but please keep comments civil or I'll delete the thread."
If they can't live up to their ideals full time, then their ideals are wrong and must be eradicated. We can rise above such irrational superstitions and hope for more. "We are one nation. We are ein volk. And our time for change has come."
Palin: I told Congress, Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere.
Truth: Congress killed the earmark in 2005. Palin was not elected until the end of 2006. There was nothing for her to tell Congress. She literally had no role in defeating the earmark, because she was not even governor when it was considered. That seems like a bald-faced lie to me.
Simply put, the narrow-mindedness and uselessness of "abstinence training" in schools is underscored by Palin's own family. This is indeed quite interesting. And relevant.
Hey, I misunderstand points all the time; sometimes, I even misunderstand them accidentally!
But I didn't misunderstand you. We both agree on the world as it should be. Unfortunately, I acknowledge the world as it is (as your small quote does not take account of). I would prefer a world where politicians didn't drag their kids up on stage with them, and were the press didn't dig into the children's lives. Here's a thought for you- have you ever met someone? Any associates? Well, if they run for President/VP, and they are close to you, the press is going to look into *your* story, moral right of privacy and all. That's the way the world is.
I assume the Palins took this into account when making their decision. For people to now say, "Well, that's the way it is is, and everyone knew that's what was going to happen, but it's inconvenient, so don't do it," is silly.
What, praytell, did you think was going to happen in the next month as Bristol began to show more and more?
Angus, the convention just ended. How many stump speeches can there have been and where have you heard them?
Someone made the comment that she was repeating herself and not keeping the speech "fresh" since the convention. That was only a few hours after the convention ended.
From what web site are you getting this stuff? It is so ludicrous and so impossible that I can only guess that someone has made it up and it is getting repeated, but way too soon.
In case it is unclear, let me give you this analogy.
You write: Poverty in the world sucks. We shouldn't have poverty.
I write: Yes, poverty is bad, but it still exists. If you give all your money away, you should expect to be poor and suffer from the effects of poverty.
You write: You misunderstand me. How dare you be pro-poverty! Why do you hate the poor! People who give their money away shoudln't be in poverty!
I write: Agreed. They shouldn't be in poverty, but that's the way of the world.
You write: But apples!
I write: Oranges!
martinned, just FYI, Europe is not "anywhere else in the world". Maybe it was so during the colonial days when you imposed your culture upon large blocks of the world at gunpoint. Right now, it's just one continent, and a stagnating one at that.