To answer the questions …
posted at 9:15 am on September 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
My friend Jazz Shaw asks two provocative questions today at The Moderate Voice about Sarah Palin and the election. They revolve around family and experience, two questions that have arisen from accident and design. The answers to them will certainly provide a kind of political Rorschach test, but they are worthwhile questions.
What would the response be if Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and his wife Michelle had a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter?
I’d like to think that most people would leave it alone. Since that’s obviously not happening with Bristol Palin, then the next answer would depend on what the Obamas did about the pregnancy. If the hypothetical daughter chose to keep the baby or put the child up for adoption, they would get lauded for their response. If she had an abortion, it would stir up a hornet’s nest of reactions across the spectrum and turn into a political football.
The fact that a family has an unplanned teen pregnancy really isn’t that significant. What matters is how they handle it. In a way, I’d reject the framing of that question, because unless the Obamas locked their teenagers in dungeons, the pregnancy doesn’t reflect on the parents at all.
Would Sara Palin, given her breadth of experience, history, views and issues, been selected by Sen. John McCain as his running mate if she were a man?
Views and issues? Absolutely, as well as “history”; it was her track record on reform that McCain most wanted on the ticket. On the experience question, allow me to respond with another question, and let’s see if people still want to play the Identity Politics game. Why did the Democrats nominate Barack Obama for the Presidency with only three years in the Senate, seven years in the Illinois legislature, with no executive, military, foreign-policy, or private-sector experience at all, and no legislative track record at any level?
That’s the trouble with questions like these. They tend to lead to more questions.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I said what I said. I think it was clear. If I wanted to say what you did, I would have.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2008 at 10:26 AM
The Palins could easily have had Bristol get an abortion and nobody would have known. Instead they are bravely doing the right thing and being responsible parents, and the chattering classes are beating them up for it.
dw on September 2, 2008 at 10:17 AM
That’s the way I see it too. The outrage from the left is about babies being born. The first thing the Palin family did ‘wrong” was welcoming a downs syndrome baby into their family, and the second thing was to lovingly support their teen daughter to give birth to her baby.
Marsh on September 2, 2008 at 10:27 AM
It isn’t just fingerpointing without purpose. This is intended to reinforce the need for sex education at the kindergarden level. Once we achieve that, there will be no more teenage pregnancy.
a capella on September 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM
You may not have meant to say it, but you did.
MarkTheGreat on September 2, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Hilarious.
SaintOlaf on September 2, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Yep, hilarious like Obama winning hilarious. Adding the wild-eyed and weird Huck to the ticket would have been an immediate death-blow to Mac; Huckster oozed fringe-right religiosity and that, as they say, is that.
Bishop on September 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Where I am from, an “unexpected pregnancy” is an expression that covers about every pregnancy except for those where couples are really trying hard to conceive. My mother’s last pregnancy was her special “bonus baby” as she didn’t expect to have a seventh but welcomed my little sister with love.
maverick muse on September 2, 2008 at 10:32 AM
if she was a man, I would be embarrassed as hell saying he was hot..
DaveC on September 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM
This is intended to reinforce the need for sex education at the kindergarden level. Once we achieve that, there will be no more teenage pregnancy.
a capella on September 2, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Nine out of ten inner-city teenage moms who place their kids in the high school day care with dozens of other kids while they attend class would agree with you.
Hormones are easily thwarted, aren’t they?
Bishop on September 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Sick.
maverick muse on September 2, 2008 at 10:35 AM
The left already tried that with Palin re. her creationism in schools position and IT FAILED. It is not a winning issue for the dems. Half the country wants creationism taught in schools.
Attacks on white, protestant Christians do not hold up well in a general election as America is a majority white, protestant nation.
SaintOlaf on September 2, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Yep. Give a 5 year old a banana and a condom to play with, and you have it all covered. I know what my two youngest grandsons would do with both those items if left to their own devices. Might be kind of funny to watch.
a capella on September 2, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I was promised three questions and I only got two. Is the third a riddle?
petunia on September 2, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Okay the third question was answered by the second…it’s early here in the west… But it wasn’t italized…
Palin got her place on the ticket by fighting corruption.
Obama got his place on the ticket by using corruption.
That is the choice and should be made clear to the fairminded folks in the middle.
petunia on September 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM
At Gateway Pundit, I read a response to avoiding pregnancy [and STDs, Don't give the lecture that abstinence doesn't include oral sex, JD.]:
Abstinence when used works 100% whereas “Safe Sex” works 60% of the time.
JiangxiDad, unexpected pregnancies occur even when couples use condoms. But think as you like. Your family and your mind are your business.
Life goes on.
And I have work.
maverick muse on September 2, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I too am a bonus baby…and I have two of my own, oops. My husband claims he planned them… which I hope he says just to get my goat… But really they are such a blessing.
I suspect that Palin didn’t attempt to have a baby just as she was being sworn in as Governer… so much for the absolute success of contraception.
petunia on September 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I don’t understand the libs problem. They don’t think a baby in the womb is really a baby. They don’t feel it has any rights, you can kill it whenever you like because it isn’t a “life”. So what’s their problem?…as far as they are concerned there is nothing there. To them is should just be a bump, a tumor. Now when the baby is born, then they can ask, who is the father, where is he, but until then, the “baby” doesn’t exist in the liberals world.
right2bright on September 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM
THE PARTY OF LAWYERS……
The Democrat Party has become the Lawyers’ Party. Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton are lawyers. Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama are lawyers. John
Edwards, the other former Democrat candidate for president, is a lawyer, and
so is his wife, Elizabeth. Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law
school (although Gore did not graduate). Every Democrat vice presidential
nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school. Look at
the Democrat Party in Congress: the Majority Leader in each house is a
lawyer.
The Republican Party is different. President Bush and Vice President Cheney
were not lawyers, but businessmen. The leaders of the Republican Revolution
were not lawyers. Newt Gingrich was a history professor; Tom Delay was an
exterminator; and, Dick Armey was an economist. House Minority Leader
Boehner was a plastic manufacturer, not a lawyer. The former Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who
left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a
sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976. The Republican
Party is made up of real people doing real work. The Democrat Party is made
up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and
Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in
history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers’ Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and
services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen
the proc ession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers’ Party,
grow. Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil
companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large
retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our
nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of
lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients,
in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they
seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and
lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful
way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some
Americans as clients and other A m ericans as opposing parties, then the
role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans
become “adverse parties” of our very government. We are not all litigants in
some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that
promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from
lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we
are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once
private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is
modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important
decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme
Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers
use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as
happened in the lynching of Scooter Li bby and Tom Delay, then the power of
lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order
to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us,
then the role of litigation i n America has become crushing.
What about the recent Supreme Court decision that gives constitutional
rights now to terrorists, who are not U.S. citizens living here under the
rule of our Constitution, but who are murderous thugs, enemies during a time
of war who are trying to destroy our country, our people and the
Constitution!!!
We CANNOT expect the Lawyers’ Party to provide real change, real reform, or
real hope in America. Most Americans know that a republic in which every
major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what
Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war
when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit
that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or
spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our
nation by the lawyers who already largely dictate American society and
business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths
of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps
Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only
make our problems worse.
Wake up America before it is too late!
reshas1 on September 2, 2008 at 11:25 AM
… so if you don’t know Palin at all, why would you comment before getting to know her? It seems to me you’ve made a foolish rush to judgment (something with which I have altogether too much experience). Why not get to know her before deciding whether or not she is a good choice?
RegularJoe on September 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM
That’s precisely what I’m doing. The way to do that is ask a lot of questions. What I see a lot of others doing is deciding that she’s great already.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I’m having a hard time connecting what I say with your responses. I didn’t say anything about abstinence or STD’s or oral sex, and wasn’t trying to intentionally imply anything about those topics either.
I think you are inferring something that I don’t see, or I inadvertently implied something that I didn’t intend to. For the record, I also didn’t say the Palins don’t belong in Washington because their kid is pregnant.
As for “unexpected” pregnancies, what I mean is that pregnancy is the likely outcome of unprotected sex amongst teens especially. In that way it is not “unexpected.” Moreover, it’s something to be generally prevented in teens. However, I certainly agree that if someone is using birth control, and a pregnancy ensues, that it was unexpected.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2008 at 12:24 PM
The answer is eggs, time, and a ring in my pocket.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 2, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Do you mean, would he choose a Governor of a State with a National Guard, that’s permenantly on duty?
Do you mean, would he choose a Commander-in-Chief of that National Guard?
Do you mean, would he choose someone, who prob’ly knows more about Leading and Defending this Nation than a sloppy drunk and a community organizer know?
I guess so
franksalterego on September 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Is the outrage on the left that two babies are being born rather than aborted, or that two WHITE babies are being born that SHOULD have been aborted cause WHITE people’s greed drives a world in need and the sooner we become a third world white minority country the better?
eaglewingz08 on September 2, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Hey, stop speculating!
That would be an issue between their daughter and an abortion doctor!
TheSitRep on September 2, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Seriously? It sure seemed as though you’d already reached your conclusion in your first post in this thread:
As the new guy in the neighborhood, I’m not really trying to pick a fight; but if you really had decided Palin was a poor choice without first learning much about her — based on the fact that she’s attractive — well, I just have to challenge that sort of thinking.
RegularJoe on September 2, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I agree 100%. I mentioned yesterday on another post that I’m quite sick of lawyers running this country.
mrsmwp on September 2, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I always respect your opinions on here. I think the reason many of us think she is great is because she seems to have an inner integrity and strength of character. You can have all the “experience” in the world and still not have what she has inside.
mrsmwp on September 2, 2008 at 1:04 PM
I’ll admit I’m a skeptic about most things. I guess people have to prove themselves to me before I accept what they say, or what others say about them. I will vote for Sarah Palin. I just wish she was more experienced. I didn’t say that she was a poor choice because she’s attractive. I said that’s what I noticed about her, not knowing all that much else about her, other than she’s not well known nationally, or very experienced. Now you and others may believe she is well known nationally and sufficiently experienced. It is there that we have a diff. of opinion.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2008 at 1:13 PM
First, thanks. Second, I hope she is great. I will have to find out for myself though. It’s just the way I am.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Oh, one more comment.
I started studying up on Palin better than three months ago, and I expect a lot of others here did, too. So when you say we’ve “decid[ed] that she’s great already”, that’s not necessarily a rushed judgment. I’ve been hoping, though not really expecting, that she’d be the pick for over a month. No candidate is ever perfect, but she’s politically expedient, ideologically consistent, mentally and emotionally tough, rhetorically adept, and smart enough to learn whatever she needs to learn VERY quickly. I think the choice is positively inspired.
As for her daughter’s pregnancy, it’s a family affair. If someone can show any way in which Sara Palin encouraged her daughter to engage in unmarried sex that would be an issue; otherwise we need to all (not just JiangxiDad) quit treating it as a moral football, and butt out.
RegularJoe on September 2, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Relative to you, my opinion about Sarah Palin’s qualifications is not as well informed. I think two months in the public eye will solve that problem, and I hope I arrive at the same conclusions you did.
JiangxiDad on September 2, 2008 at 1:23 PM
no, a paradox
urbancenturion on September 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I don’t think this point is off-topic, and I haven’t seen it in this thread yet.
If Obama is elected, we can expect much less “parental notification” about abortion. Using the current example, even Sarah and Todd Palin might not know Bristol was pregnant if she chose to abort it.
As a parent, who has signed consent forms for minor treatments of my kids, this is both illogical and unacceptable.
I hope the media will let them have their privacy. Seeing Levi’s pic on Drudge makes me doubt it, though.
cs89 on September 2, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I’m really starting to wonder if a lot of these conservatives that are helping the left trash Palin, are wanting to get Obama elected so they can have a new Reagan come in and save the country after Obama trashes it.
mtbunji on September 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2