Hypocrisy on Palin daughter / LJWorld.com

Archive for Friday, September 5, 2008

By Cal Thomas

September 5, 2008

St. Paul, Minn. — We are such hypocrites. When it was announced that Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant, the media pounced.

Did this damage Palin's preference for abstinence-only policies? Shouldn't she be staying home at this difficult time in her daughter's life? What about Palin's new baby, who has Down syndrome? Shouldn't he be getting much more of her time and attention? How can she be vice president and a good mother? Haven't critics forgotten that Palin has a husband to help?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has five children. No one has asked her such questions.

One female journalist said to me it makes a mockery out of the Republican Party's family values platform. No it doesn't.

Speaking with some personal experience on these matters - our daughter experienced a premarital pregnancy and I have a brother with Down syndrome - I am astounded at the rush to judgment by so many in the media, a media that promotes what it then quickly decries. So who are the real hypocrites?

One can't turn on the TV in primetime without being exposed to all sorts of sex (except the marital variety). There is very little "safe sex" on TV. Actresses speak of their sexual exploits as if they were discussing the latest in designer shoes or where to have lunch. Erectile dysfunction commercials abound. The Internet offers free porn with a single "click." My grandmother, who thought it demonstrated poor breeding to say the words "toilet paper" in public, would be scandalized. Entertainment reporters hold up as role models young actresses having sex and babies out of wedlock, as if it is one of many equally valid choices.

Many in the media are now questioning whether Sarah Palin has allowed her career and a "lust for power" to interfere with her family responsibilities. This is laughable. These same people have promoted women who work 12-hour days and dump their preschool children in day care.

When Bill Clinton was exposed for his affairs, defenders said it was "only" sex and that everybody lies about sex and most probably cheat on their spouses. When Jesse Jackson was reported to have a "love child," no one clamored for his ordination papers to be revoked. And when John Edwards was outed by the National Enquirer about his own affair, the cover-up and his own alleged "love child," he suffered some ridicule and rejection, but there was talk in some media quarters that he might "rehabilitate" himself and run for office again.

When news breaks that the daughter of a Republican political figure is pregnant out of wedlock, the media quickly return to our Puritan roots and seek to hold certain people (usually conservatives) to a moral standard that culture has abandoned. Palin should have stayed home to devote more time to her children, they say. She is an unprincipled careerist who will sacrifice family in order to achieve success. And so on.

Rev. Billy Graham once observed that the "new morality," as it was once called, is nothing more than the old immorality with new wrapping. He was right. There is nothing "new" about immorality or morality. Styles may change, but standards don't; otherwise some elected officials would not still be going to jail for violating the law. If you think standards are relative, try this line on the cop who stops you for exceeding the speed limit. "Officer, you may think I was going 75 in a 25-mile zone, but speed is relative."

Abstinence is a standard that works 100 percent of the time for those who practice it. There are consequences for those who do not, and Bristol Palin has joined a growing list of young women who have come to realize that too late. As to whether any of this should reflect poorly on Sarah Palin or her husband, I suspect most Americans will empathize with all concerned and say no.

- Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

5 September 2008
at 12:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

zzgoeb (Anonymous) says…

She opposes choice for others. She proudly announced her son will serve in Iraq. Isn't that using him for political advantage? Seems very hypocritical to me. This is a woman who says one thing and does another…a true neo-con. Do we want someone in this important position that couldn't find the leadership ability to talk with her daughter about birth control and sex outside of marriage, which is a sin to her own church? The young rabbi only became angry when speaking about religious hypocrits!
5 September 2008
at 3:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

I do not condemn Sarah Palin for: 1) Becoming pregnant at a late age, and not aborting a known Downs Syndrome fetus. That is her right as an American. 2) Continuing her job as Governor, and/or Running for Vice President. Her children appear to have been adequately cared for since infancy. Like many working Americans woman, she has successfully relied upon the help of a spouse, older children, friends, neighbors, other family members, and sitters. Nothing wrong or usual about that. 3) Raising her children with a religious philosophy that condemns abortion, anything but abstinence only sex education, an abhorrence to birth control, and a literal interpretation of the Bible. That is her Constitutional Right as an American. 4) That her 17 year old child is unmarried, pregnant, and intends to give birth and raise the child. It happens to over a million teenage American girls each and every year, and while not the best of all possible worlds, it is the frequent and understandable result of human sexual instinct. However, and because we live in the great Constitutional Democracy known as American, I do condemn her for attempting to force her personal religious beliefs, and her narrowly construed philosophy regarding sex education, birth control, marriage, abortion, et al. upon the rest of us. While personal religious beliefs and family life should be “off limits” in the American political arena, when one specifically chooses those things as a “plank” of a political campaign, and wears them on a sleeve, the proverbial “barn door” is irreversibly opened, and is subject to fair comment. Yes, Sarah, like the majority of Americans women, you are the proud mother of a beautiful family. Everything else about your family is irrelevant, immaterial, and off limits… but nonetheless frightening in that, if you were Queen, all American's would be legally obligated to “Be like Sarah.” No thanks. Go away, and leave the rest of us be. We have Constitutional rights, too.
5 September 2008
at 5:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tanzer (Anonymous) says…

maybe critics just expect her and hers to live up to her own moral standards - that's all.
5 September 2008
at 6 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

queequeg (Anonymous) says…

Why are the republicans blaming the media for this? McCain picks someone that most Americans have never heard of so the media dove in and found out all they could in a short period of time. I thank them for their efforts. I want to know who this woman is.
5 September 2008
at 6:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

Tanzer:Then I guess you'd have to, using your logic, claim Jesus Christ was a failure. After all, HE was betrayed by one of his own Apostles. Your position assumes absolute control over anothers actions, will, and decisions. The ONLY people I see and hear advocating such draconian concepts come from the left end of the political spectrum. Me thinks thy logic is flawed!
5 September 2008
at 8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dumas (Anonymous) says…

Brent,Jesus also wasn't judgemental. That can't be said of socially conservative Republicans. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/ind…
5 September 2008
at 8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

I don't care that her daughter is pregnant. Our eldest child was an infant at our wedding, although I was older than Ms. Palin. She believes in abstinence only education, but couldn't make it work in her own family, but seems to think it would work for everyone else. No abortion, period, no freedom of choice for a victim of rape. I don't like her ideals and how I feel they will be forced on the American public. I don't belong to either party, but something about her rubs me the wrong way. Not sure who I will vote for come November, but she gives me something to think about.

5 September 2008
at 8:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

Hey idiot, Nancy's kids were grown by the time she entered office. Plus, she wasn't using one with a disability as an anti-choice fantasy poster child .
5 September 2008
at 8:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

“Jesus also wasn't judgemental. “Whah? Someone should probably read the bible.
5 September 2008
at 9:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

Lest we forget, the beauty queen trotted out baby twig or leaf or whatever his name is at her very first appearance on the national stage and used the baby as Exhibit #1 in her pander to the right wing kooks. And, also, she demands pro-life for all, but how many are shielded from the consequences of that decision as she is. Alaska's taxpayers are generously providing food, housing and medical care for Ms. Palin and child. Does Ms. Palin advocate equal treatment for those she insists follow her religious beliefs? If so, they have not explained that adequately. I would think it would be a big plus to their campaign, although paying for it would be interesting. If they are not proposing such treatment, then perhaps she should keep her hypocritical mouth shut and allow individual women and families to make their own decisions without that governmental interference that conservative supposedly hate.
5 September 2008
at 9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“Why are the republicans blaming the media for this?”http://www.slate.com/id/2199359/Because it's a strategy that has worked in the past.
5 September 2008
at 10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

Scotty wrote: “Lest we forget, the beauty queen trotted out baby twig or leaf or whatever his name is …”Funny, scotty. thanks for the chuckle.
5 September 2008
at 10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

I see the sissy Scott3460 has attacked Palin for having her baby at the convention. If she hadn't had the baby at the convention, I have no doubt that the little coward would have whined, “Look, she's ashamed of her baby. That's why she's hiding him.”You know Restore, you are a bright enough person, you do not need to stoop to mischaracterizing and falsely attributing motives to people here. Why do you so often do so? Laziness? Uncertain of the strength of your beliefs and positions? What I quite clearly criticized the Shrill Queen for was the hypocrisy of making sure the baby was omnipresent so that the religious right kooks could see Exhibit #1 in her presentation as a true believer, and then turning around and complaining when the media or any Democratic critic commented on her family. Now I have argued that she seems to think it OK to impose a pro-life decision on everyone and have them live with the consequences, when she is not doing so herself. That alone suggest she's one that does not like to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Add to it her hypocrisy on comments about the family and we are beginning to see a pattern of one rule that applies to the imperial Ms. Palin and another for the rest of us. What did you folks call that? Elitism? Or is she just being uppitty?
5 September 2008
at 11:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

Touche, Scotty!!!
5 September 2008
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Navin_R_Johnson (Anonymous) says…

scott3460 (Anonymous) says: “You know Restore, you are a bright enough person, you do not need to stoop to mischaracterizing and falsely attributing motives to people here. Why do you so often do so? Laziness? Uncertain of the strength of your beliefs and positions?”…and later:”What I quite clearly criticized the Shrill Queen for was the hypocrisy of making sure the baby was omnipresent so that the religious right kooks could see Exhibit #1 in her presentation as a true believer…”yes scott, it would seem not only that you are an hysterical baboon falling into every trap imaginable that McCain has laid for you, you really ought to be a bit more attentive to the accusations you cast at others that you are clearly guilty of.

5 September 2008
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Love it! Cal writing a story about little “Juno” Palin in order to chastise those writing stories about little “Juno” Palin. What a laugh.
5 September 2008
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Navin_R_Johnson (Anonymous) says…

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says: “Touche, Scotty!!!”yeah, if you're a hypocrite, then sure! then you'd only need to replace “T” with “D” and clean your brain out!have a nice day!
5 September 2008
at 11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Navin_R_Johnson (Anonymous) says…

beatrice (Anonymous) says: “Love it! Cal writing a story about little “Juno” Palin in order to chastise those writing stories about little “Juno” Palin. What a laugh.”impressive and intellectual political commentary as usual bea. when you get to the bottom of the Kool-Aid pitcher just break the glass to save yourself.
5 September 2008
at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xbusguy (Anonymous) says…

Let us give Palin a chance.
5 September 2008
at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nekansan (Anonymous) says…

I think TheSychophant said it fairly well, but I might add….I have concerns with the morals of those who profess to be anti abortion yet fight education that every study is shown to reduce teen pregnancy and therefore the demand for abortions. I also question the judgment of anyone who through their own experience has experienced the failure of abstinence only sex education and still fails to see the value in a comprehensive sex education strategy. Is Palin really who McCain thinks, out of the millions of people in the Republican party, is the most qualified candidate for Vice President? If so that also leaves me with questions regarding his judgment.
5 September 2008
at 11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mimis_friend (Anonymous) says…

Wow, what a deal! I think that just because the American people have accepted that girls, Jesse Jackson and other have children outside of marriage, does NOT make it OK! It is wrong no matter how you cut it. Acceptance of sinful things is not right. I personally don't get the banter about Jesus all the time on here, but I have to say, What would he Say about this? Do you think your god would permit premarital sex, children out of wedlock, extramarital sex? I don't. I don't think that one whose family has had this happen should make it a happy, exciting event. The girl was sinful, something to keep to ones self and ask for guidance and forgiveness, not to “proudly” declare to the world.
5 September 2008
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

eric1889 (Anonymous) says…

What about the hypocrisy of the Republican Party? They denounce teenage mothers and their parents as long as they are not running on their ticket.http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card
5 September 2008
at 12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

marcdeveraux (Anonymous) says…

Brent garner , jesus was a failed prophet, ask any rabbi. Or is that to much to ask? Only a copy cat religion , (christianity) thinks jesus is a success. The jewish people consider jesus to be one of many prophets. Early on in history , a person had to be jewish to be a christian. Then some guys thought ,lets make a religion easier, poof! Christianity was perverted into a splinter religion. Many consider christianity it to be a walmart version of the original jewish religion.

5 September 2008
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Navin once again said “Kool-Aid!” I'll bet you say “ditto” too.
5 September 2008
at 2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

My, my.The sheer, tawdry meanness of today's “liberals” continues to sink lower and lower. Keep it up - you're earning your own outcome.
5 September 2008
at 4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

1029 (Anonymous) says…

You guys are all mean for criticizing Cal. He writes well and has accomplished a lot for a person with Down's Syndrome. You shouldn't expect him to be as intelligent or as coherent as a person who doesn't have developmental disabilities.
5 September 2008
at 5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dandelion (Anonymous) says…

Who are the hypocrites? Not long ago holier than thou Republicans were blaming all the unwed mothers on the liberals. Wasn't the elder George's VP who was all up in arms about the fictional Murphy Brown promoting unwed mothers, for shame, for shame. But now being an unwed pregnant teen is just too sweet. She and Brittany Spear's little sister are going to be such good role models. Look out, parents of young girls. It's going to become fashionable to be a pregnant teenager.
5 September 2008
at 6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…

1029: “… a person with Down's Syndrome. You shouldn't expect himto be as intelligent or as coherent as a person who doesn't have developmental disabilities.”OK, 1029… I've done the math, and I come up with 3s and 7s…( thrice the cube of seven, to be precise ) …but I'm sure there are sequential sixes lurking there, somewhere,just beneath the surface….
5 September 2008
at 6:26 p.m.

Permalink

coltrane (Anonymous) says…

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
6 September 2008
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bkgarner (Brent Garner) says…

marcdeveraux;Inasmuch as nothing in my original posting was an endorsement of Christianity, and, inasmuch as you have taken such an anti-Christian viewpoint, if not an anti-religion viewpoint, I am left to conclude that you, like Bozo, are a secular-progressive, totalitarian bigot who believes that anyone who believes in God, or a divine being, has to be mentally deficient and is, therefore, either a threat to society, as you see it, or in need of “re-education” by someone like yourself who “knows” so much more!Classic leftist intolerance on display yet again!
6 September 2008
at 10:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

Levi Johnston is the father of Bristol Palin's baby. The 17-year-old hockey player at Burchell High School in Wasilla, Alaska, is by all accounts soon to be married to the Republican vice presidential candidate's daughter, but all may not be well. His MySpace page revealed juicy details about his outlook on life before he made it private. In it, he admits, “I'm a f**kin' redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some sh*t and just f**kin' chillin' I guess. Ya f*ck with me I'll kick ass.”After all the publicity, Levi Johnston's MySpace was redacted, revealing no evidence of his previous profanity laden macho posturing. Although he admits that he is in a relationship, he still says that he wants to use MySpace “for networking or for dating.” Moreover, on the subject of possible children, he left the message, “Love kids, but not for me.” Most devastatingly, in a sharp contrast to the Palin family's conservative views, Levi instead posts that he is an agnostic.The Levi Johnston-Bristol Palin marriage-to-be may yet not be, despite assurances from the Palin campaign. Their baby is due in four more months so the nuptials can't be delayed much longer.So, what's the big deal, you ask: (1) The McCain Campaign's abject failure to discover the existence of this page, and 86 it before publically identifying Palin as running mate. In Hollywood, secret agents permanently delete files of their “assets” and other damning information, with such extreme prejudice, it's like they never existed. Political campaigns presumably have a similar capacity, especially when it comes to myspace pages. I mean, how many people have both the duimb luck and foresight to download Levi's utterly pedestrian and unremarkable page before last week's runaway train was both christened and irreversibly derailed railed. . Even an internet neophyte is cognizant of Myspace's popularity. Surely, all of us who religiously read our local newspaper's on-line edition recall the several fatal victims of crime and car wrecks whose myspace link is invariably posted in the comments section within a hour or two after their identities are publically revealed. The same for notorious local scofflaws. Rank amateurs!!! Base and primitive neophytes!!!! No? And the same fu*k-ups will be staffing the White House and other major governmental entities and agencies, in important supervisory roles, no less, should McCain win. Remember Monica Goulding? Remember “You're doing a great job, Brownie?”

6 September 2008
at 10:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheSychophant (Anonymous) says…

(continued) (2) While it is sometimes dangerous, presumptuous and unfair to postulate–without secret agent truth serum—the theoretically unknown and unknowable intent and motivations racing through the minds of others, you can't help but think this: Hmmm, typical 17 year old Red Neck Boy: Loves to cuss, play sports, down a few brews, arm wrestle, fight, and get a little trim. But marriage and kids? No way, no how. So who is perpetrating and perpetuating this distinctly plausible, possible, probable and arguable lie that Bristol and Levi are deeply in love, and want to live happily ever after?. Shot gun wedding? Nah, too crude. If Sarah is anything, she's a cunning playa. Swiss bank account wedding, conveniently cancelledcan you hear “Church Lady”—after the election, and thereafter eternally irrelevant? Four years later, its old news. Remember Monica the Maydela? The Cigar? The Dress? Old hat, except for, perhaps the most acerbic and dog-loyal repubs. Speculation? Yes. But, honestly, I cannot categorically conclude “no way, no how.” . How bout we just give the voters the uncontroverted facts, and let them decide? .
6 September 2008
at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dandelion (Anonymous) says…

When are the righties going to stop talking about Palin's family and start talking about the issues? So her family is fertile, would she run the country like she ran that little town in Alaska. God forbid.