September 2, 2008

In our Palinsanity, we need a Palindrome: Harass Sarah.

I'm up way too early this morning, not because I personally am tossing and turning over the Palinsanity that has seized the blogosphere, but I can see that you people have been up all night, and every night since Friday, commenting feverishly throughout the night, pushing my traffic up threefold and more.

This morning I take a glance at the NYT -- "Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process," "In Political Realm, ‘Family Problem’ Emerges as Test," "Palin Daughter’s Pregnancy Interrupts Script" -- and Memeorandum -- "The Palin Meltdown in Slo-Mo," "Pool: What Day Will Sarah Palin Drop Out?," "Face It: They Didn't Vet Her" -- and I see that the press and the blogosphere have rolled out their attacks for the first working day after the McCain's game-changing announcement.

So it looks like another big day for the craziness that, last night, I called Palinsanity.

In the comments -- and there are tons of comments -- Madison Man said (I've added links):
You need to make a Palindrome.
Amba said:
Welcome to the Palin-Drome.

Now let's have some palindromes to let off steam.

Or is a palindrome like a syndrome? Is it getting you Down? (wince)
But it was chickenlittle who discovered the perfect Palin Palindrome:
Harass Sarah.
And we all smile at chickenlittle's bon mot and hope the sky is not falling.

65 comments:

rhhardin said...

Imus expects her to be in rehab pretty quickly.

First words out of McGuirk: ``At least we know her family is pro-drilling.''

The entertainment line seems to have been taken up.

Fen said...

A whole new level of contempt for the Left.

Beldar said...

Panic and desperation in the uncontrollable Hard Left has completely removed any decency or common-sense filters. The garbage spews onto the net as soon as it's excreted.

Acting on cue from dKos, Jake Tapper and Marc Ambinder have moved on to a new "scandal" that will take another 24-hour news cycle to explode.

The cumulative backlash from this loathsome blather will end up being greater than the lash of it ever was.

Meade said...

Meanwhile, as the world turns, Ruth Anne has pointed out that even the NYTimes is acknowledging the huge un-melodramatic turn-around in Anbar. @11:02 PM

rhhardin said...

Maybe there will be a palinode from the left.

Roger J. said...

I doubt very seriously if Gov Palin drops out--she impresses me has having more fortitude than Biden and Obama combined. I doubt she gives a damn what the urban MSM press is yapping about.

As to vetting--a remarkable argument in its stupidity. It assumes that the McCain campaign would somehow vet their candidate on precisely the same basis that the NYT would a remarkable exercise in mirror imaging as I think that phenomenon is called.

McCain DID vet her and went with her because they thought she would be good for the ticket. It was a tactical pick aimed at shoring up support among conservatives and some disaffected hillarites. And these continued attacks by the littarati will do nothing but drive her approval numbers up in the constituency for which she was selected.

Seven Machos said...

Anagrams

The new scandal: HAS IRAN PAL

From the hardcore hip hop left: HA, LIAR. SNAP!

And, for fun: A SHARP NAIL

Roger J. said...

This vetting thing also assumes that an unmarried mom to be in the family is basis for rejecting the candidate. I didnt realize the NYT and political commentariat were so judgmental about those sorts of things.

Simon said...

Echo Fen and Beldar. Unbelievably bad behavior. If it was just the dishonest memes ("I think _____ is weird, which proves that McCain didn't vet her!"; "she doesn't know what the veep does"), that would be one thing; if it was just the jaw-droppingly hypocritical memes ("she has no experience"), that would be one thing; but when you put it all together with the stunningly brutal misogyny and vicious personal smears, the whole package is nauseating.

Michael_H said...

WOW! I was away from internet access all weekend and when I returned home last evening, scanned the Palin threads.

This place looks like AltKos, with many heretofore unseen names unloading the usual left-wing vile crap.

McCain's selection of Palin as his running mate must terrify the Obamatrons, based on their reaction.

An interesting contrast can be found on Hillaryforum.net, where many pro-HRC types are posting about their conversion to the McCain-Palin ticket.

I spent four days in the wilderness in northern WI and MI's U.P. The reaction to McCain's selection of Palin among white, working class rural men was interesting to see and hear in bars, restaurants, gas stations, etc. In a nutshell: The hunter/work-with-your-hands types like what they've heard, especially the news that Palin and her husband were both union members. I think that there are more voters in play than just disaffected Hillary voters.

As for her family - they seem like nice people who have the same problems faced by millions of other families. Leave them alone.

Roger J. said...

By the way: would someone remind me what "scandal" are we talking about? the rumor that the baby wasnt hers? the fact she has a unmarried daughter? the fact she wears fur? The fact she has more executive experience than Obama Biden combined? Folks: there no there there.

John said...

The Democrats are so stupid. They fall for the same trap every time. They just resist being jerks and calling their opponents stupid. The problem is that when they do that they lower the expectations of their opponents so much, that all the Republican has to do is put two sentences together and not promise to kill old ladies for sport and the Republican looks great.

If you are old enough, the Democrats did the same thing to Reagan. Reagan was a senile old man who was going to destroy social security. One of the turning points of the campaign was Reagan telling Carter in the debates "there you go again" in response to Carter claiming he was going to destroy Social Security.

I suspect that there is a little bit of Reagan in Palin. She gave a great speech on Friday. The more the Democrats hyperventaliate about her, the more people are going to watch her and think, "she seems pretty normal to me".

If creatures of the left know anything, it is danger. Something about this woman scares the living daylights out of them. I don't know Palin well enough yet to understand fully why she is such a threat to them, but clearly they think she is. It is only Tuesday and already we have the wish fulfillment stories of her going away.

hdhouse said...

.....obviously missing in the reality part of the semi-hard right is that Palin proves once again that anyone and I mean "anyone" can be vice-president....this choice is so silly and desperate that we need not mess around with a 17 y.o. in turmoil which we shouldn't anyway.

And I thought there was no more an empty suit than McCain....ooops.

hdhouse said...

and one more thing you right wing "pigs fly" types....mccain wanted lieberman ... that was his go to guy....so he takes this third-rater from Alaska...


tell me who holds his puppet strings?

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

PMS That is good. It is amazing how this woman has driven the left out of their minds. Good thing they are not defensive or anything. This from a party whose last VP candidate was John Edwards; a man who only known skill was channeling the voices of dead babies to gullible juries.

AllenS said...

I can hardly wait for the VP debates to begin.

Palinette vs. Bidenedsel.

krylovite said...

The fact she has more executive experience than Obama Biden combined?

She has more executive experience than McCain too. Big deal. Her experience in politics is insubstantial - no national political experience and only local/state political experience representing relatively small constituencies. She doesn't have an impressive resume.

Give it up. This "executive experience" meme is almost as stupid as the claim that Palin has foreign policy experience based on the proximity of Alaska to Russia. If executive experience matters, the GOP wouldn't have nominated McCain.

Simon said...

krylovite said...
"She has more executive experience than McCain too."

That's true.

"Big deal."

That's true too, although not in the way you mean it. Yes, it's a big deal.

Beldar said...

Krylovite, you miss the point of ticket balancing.

Gov. Palin in strong in areas in which Sen. McClain is comparatively weak, e.g., on energy policy and general executive experience. Sen. McCain is strong in areas in which Gov. Palin is comparatively weak (in ways that almost all state governors are weak), e.g., on foreign policy and national security. They overlap on the single characteristic that each would consider the most self-defining -- as reformers.

They are complementary running mates, better suited together to govern the country than either would be alone.

bearbee said...

On the job ferreting out top 10 mistakes/scandals

krylovite said...

Why is the Right applauding the fact that two irresponsible teenagers are getting married as a result of teen pregnancy? That doesn't sound like a good recipe for a successful marriage that will provide a healthy and stable environment for a child.

There ought to be some sort of penalty for politicians who cling tenaciously to policies that have been shown to be ineffective. Abstinence-only sex education has been shown to be ineffective, yet the Right still likes to pretend that abstinence is the solution to the problem of teen pregnancy. It isn't:

One third of the nation's girls get pregnant by age 20, the highest rate among fully industrialized nations, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancies. After a 15-year-long decline in the teen birth rate the rate rose 3 percent in 2006 according to the nonpartisan group.

Palin's position?

Palin addressed teen pregnancy prevention in her 2006 run for governor, indicating on a questionnaire that she favored abstinence-until-marriage education over explicit sex education programs, school-based clinics and condom distribution in schools. The high school that Bristol Palin attended for part of last year, Wasilla High School, teaches abstinence in health class, its principal said.

Public policy matters, and we pay the consequences when we get it wrong.

krylovite said...

That's true too, although not in the way you mean it. Yes, it's a big deal.

She doesn't have any significant executive experience. Twenty-one months as governor of a very low population state isn't impressive, and her experience as mayor of Wasilla is a joke.

If that's the best you have, run with it!

krylovite said...

Beldar,

Palin isn't qualified to serve as President, and her executive experience is very limited and insubstantial. She was chosen on the basis of electoral considerations only. If you honestly believe that she strenghtens the ticket, then McCain must be an unimpressive nominee with serious weaknesses.

LoafingOaf said...

Palinsanity? What's that? Putting someone you know almost nothing about in a position to potentially be President, Commander in Chief, and Leader of the Free World a couple months down the line because she didn't abort her down syndrome baby and looks hot with a gun? That's playing a bit too recklessly with the fate of my nation and this world. But, as I've said all along, the burden's on Palin to make her case that she's qualified, and maybe she can. Until she does, I'm astounded at how some of the commenters here apparently don't need to know anything about a person except that she's approved of by the Religious Right on social conservative issues for them to think she should be Commander in Chief. I guess that's how we got a dunce in there for the last 8 years who has practically wrecked America's reputation and credibility around the globe.

But, hey, the Religious Right probably figure Palin has a limited record so it's harder to attack her record except that there's little record to speak of. They also know they couldn't win in their own party's primaries (their most-hated Republican - someone they have called a RINO for years - won that) so if they forced McCain to stick Palin on there at the last minute that's their way to sneak back into the White House without winning over the people.

It's a reasonable speculation that Palin is currently cramming on the issues, especially foreign policy issues. She's cramming the night before her convention. She'll be cramming the night before her debates. In other words, she'll be faking it through the campaign, pretending to be authoritative and expert on wide-ranging issues that she has not even thought about till this month. She already confessed she paid no attention to Iraq polucy except that she hoped there'd be a quick exit strategy and the troops would be safe and have adequate equipment.

I just don't like the Religious Right playing so recklessly with the fate of my country. Maybe Palin WOULD be a terrific VP or even President. They don't know. Most of them hadn't heard of her till a couple months ago. They just like her religious values.

Simon said...

LoafingOaf said...
"Palinsanity? What's that? Putting someone you know almost nothing about in a position to potentially be President, Commander in Chief, and Leader of the Free World a couple months down the line ... [?]"

Yes, why DID you nominate him, again?

Simon said...

krylovite said...
"She was chosen on the basis of electoral considerations only."

The only problem with this meme is that it's utterly false.

"Palin isn't qualified to serve as President, and her executive experience is very limited and insubstantial."

As opposed to Obama's, which is non-existent.

mcg said...

Why is the Right applauding the fact that two irresponsible teenagers are getting married as a result of teen pregnancy? That doesn't sound like a good recipe for a successful marriage that will provide a healthy and stable environment for a child.

Of course it would have been better that she not get pregnant in the first place. That they did so was a mistake. What we're applauding is them making the right choice subsequent to that mistake.

mcg said...

I just don't like the Religious Right playing so recklessly with the fate of my country. Maybe Palin WOULD be a terrific VP or even President. They don't know. Most of them hadn't heard of her till a couple months ago. They just like her religious values.

McCain could have put Howdy Doody in the VP slot and his ticket would be better for the country than Obama. Don't lecture us on what's reckless when you're prepared to put Obama in the White House.

Peter V. Bella said...

This from a party whose last VP candidate was John Edwards; a man who only known skill was channeling the voices of dead babies to gullible juries.

And live babiesfrom barfly tramp video producers

mcg said...

But, as I've said all along, the burden's on Palin to make her case that she's qualified, and maybe she can.

Of course. Look, Oaf, this race is tight, but polls have consistently put McCain behind, save an outlier here or there. There are quite a few of us who would vote for McCain no matter what, simply because Obama is not an acceptable alternative. Hell, I told my wife he should have put Hillary on the ticket. That would have made heads explode on both sides of the aisle but it would have saved us from the train wreck that is Obamania.

The risk, however, is that there really aren't enough people like me. Putting a yawner like Pawlenty on the ticket, in my view, was likely not enough.

I'm excited about this ticket not because Palin is hot and can shoot a gun. I was told in another thread that I look like Todd Palin; well, I've got my Sarah at home, thanks. I'm excited about it because it is a game changer. As much as you hate it, a lot of people are excited about McCain who were not excited before; and what is more, a lot of people who were undecided are excited about him too. For some, it's because she's hawt. For some, it's because she's pro-life. For some, it's because she's pro-gun. For some, it's because she's a woman. There are a variety of reasons why people are excited, and that is exactly what is required in any VP pick, especially for the underdog.

But the fact remains that she is is largely an unknown. For many of these new "excited" folks, they still need Sarah Palin to close the deal. Her first opportunity is tonight, and then she'll have other 60-or-so days of opportunities to come. She'll have to spank Biden in the debates pretty good, too. Otherwise, some of those who were Obama-leaners until Palin was picked will go back to leaning Obama.

John said...

"Why is the Right applauding the fact that two irresponsible teenagers are getting married as a result of teen pregnancy?"

How is it any of your business who this girl marries? That is the difference between left and right. The left really doesn't understand the idea of a private sphere. To the left everything is public and all politics is personal. Therefore, the fact that this girl is pregnant is not a private matter but a matter of grave political importance because it may bear on her mother's hypocrisy. The public must know how many times this girl had sex, if she used a condom, why she didn't have an abortion, how many other guys she has slept with. Is her brother really her baby? We must see all of Palin's medical records and she must take a paternity test to ensure that the child really is her.

The right in contrast looks at this and thinks it is none of our business. It is her family and things happen and kids do dumb stuff despite our best efforts.

PatCA said...

I've been out of touch this weekend and we only heard the accounts of Palin being chosen, then the news last night of the daughter.

The liberals at the family gathering didn't know who she was, but at least three people of different ages and background said they're voting for McCain for sure now, because Palin is new and, well, spunky and she put politicians in jail.

Is it the left that's freaking out, or did I miss something? This pregnancy certainly will not cause her drop out, do you think??

Simon said...

PatCA said...
"Is it the left that's freaking out[?]"

Beyond freaking out. They are behaving like a belligerent two year old who's had his rattle taken away. Actually, strike that. They're behaving like the teenage cliche.

hdhouse said...

John said...
"It is amazing how this woman has driven the left out of their minds."

really? john? isn't it amazing that the right has found this woman to run. we are only driven out of our minds by the shallowness of the republican field...."as in: can you believe this shtick?"

Mr. Yoshimoto said...

I've registered as a Democrat in NJ, Then moved to Michigan and registered as an Independent, I am now in San Francisco and damn if all of this hasn't made me own up that to the fact that I am a Republican at heart and ready to register today. A bunch of losers with nasty blogs just pushed me over the edge:) Ha!

Michael McNeil said...

krylovite: (approx.) “Being governor for 21 months of a very low population state isn't impressive.”
Ann: (approx.) “Governor of Alaska is like being mayor of Ft. Worth.”

I think Ann has mainly had very good instincts in general in her commentary and conclusions on the subject of Sarah Palin, but I really disagree with the meme above.

Alaska is huge and geographically enormously diverse. Superimposed on the continental U.S., the state would stretch from the far-flung Aleutian Islands chain and fish-rich but storm-tossed and sometimes ice-choked Bering Sea, where the furthermost Aleutian isle ends up at Los Angeles; while the vast Alexander Archipelago of the Alaskan Southeast, where the capital lies, would extend as far as Charleston, South Carolina; and the enormous Alaska mainland -- twice the size of Texas -- would reach up to the (continental U.S.'s) Canadian border!

Amidst all that diversity, only a minority of the state has any kind of road access, and thousands of people live hundreds of miles from any road, who only aircraft (the famous “bush pilots”) can reach in emergencies. Across that great extent, dispersed industries such as commercial fishing, forestry, and oil and gas production operate (Sarah's own husband has recently worked in both the commercial fishing and oil industries), and an oil pipeline crosses the mainland from one end to t’other. Palin herself during her tenure as governor has worked towards and negotiated with Canada concerning a new natural gas pipeline that will reach from northern Alaska to the continental U.S.

Given all this, in my view, in a sense even if Alaska had no inhabitants, it would still be harder to administer and provide better executive experience than any relatively compact, mid-sized city.

Nor should the size of Alaska's population be disparaged; for instance it's around the size of Virginia in 1776, which somehow managed nonetheless to produce some few halfway competent founding fathers for the nascent United States of America.

Given the undoubted difficulties of her job, one of the most interesting aspects I think of Palin as Alaska governor is that after almost two years in office, she still maintains an 80% approval rating from the Alaskan people. That's remarkable for any politician.

krylovite said...

A whole new level of contempt for the Left.

Easy guys, the hypocrisy meter is going to explode if you're not careful.

Remember when the current GOP nominee told this classy joke?

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.


Before you slam the Left for a few tasteless comments from a few irresponsible bloggers, check the track record of some of the prominent voices on the Right, including McCain. You don't hold the moral high ground. It's not even close in fact.

chickenlittle said...

Ann said: the sky is falling

ba-kawk! I got say that once as a comment on a different blog a long time ago.

Now I'm just stuck with the name!

krylovite said...

Simon,
You continue to pretend that executive experience is critical for a presidential/vice presidential candidate. Obviously the country doesn't agree since the two major party nominees have no executive experience.

Executive experience alone doesn't count for much. McCain and Obama are both senators, but that doesn't make their experience equal. There's a matter of length of service to consider. It's also relevant to consider the size of the constituency that a candidate has represented. For example, serving as mayor of New York would be better executive experience than serving as mayor of Podunk or Wasilla.

Palin has only 21 months of experience as governor of a state with a relatively small population (670000). Before that she was mayor of a town of about 7000. That doesn't qualify as significant executive experience.

If executive experience is Palin's greatest strength in your opinion, then the GOP has selected a really weak candidate for VP.

krylovite said...

What we're applauding is them making the right choice subsequent to that mistake.

Why is marriage the right choice for two irresponsible teenagers? You haven't convinced me by a second round of applause.

krylovite said...

The right in contrast looks at this and thinks it is none of our business.

Bullshit. You wouldn't have been applauding the news of a marriage if you really believed it was none of your business. If you really believe this is none of your business, you'd have shut up about it already. If you really believe you shouldn't be talking about it, don't. Actions speak louder than words.

Back to my question... I'm asking WHY the Right thinks marriage is such a swell deal for these kids. I thought the Right considered marriage a sacred institution. Now you tell me that marriage can be based on nothing more than getting a girl knocked up. What's sacred about that?

chickenlittle said...

@krylovite

have you considered medication?

Simon said...

krylovite, you seem to have wildly misunderstood me. I didn't say that "executive experience is critical for a presidential/vice presidential candidate," I said that the claims that Obama has it and that Palin's doesn't count (or counts less than Obama's) are ridiculous. Nor have I ever said that "executive experience is Palin's greatest strength" - the point, again, is that her experience contrasts favorably with Obama's, a point that only needs to be made in rebuttal because your side insists on pushing the shamelessly absurd claim that Obama is more experienced than Palin.

krylovite said...

have you considered medication?

Hey chickenlittle, is "medication" the official Rush Limbaugh solution to all the problems of the world?

It must be tough for you to constantly warn the world that the sky is falling and have everyone ignore you. Before you conclude that everyone else is crazy and you are the lone voice of reason, you ought to go back and reread the fable that features poor Chicken Little. You might learn something.

blake said...

Being governor of Alaska is like being mayor of Fort Worth, if Fort Worth streched from Texas up to Canada and over to California.

blake said...

I keep waiting for someone to draw the Fred parallel.

Fred was a reckless teenager who knocked up his girlfriend. Nobody makes hay about that.

Granted it was 50 years ago. But that makes it all the more scandalous, eh?

krylovite said...

Simon,
You seem to have wildly misunderstood me. I haven't been comparing Palin's and Obama's experience. I'm looking at the standard that McCain set for presidential and vice presidential candidates. By McCain's own standard, Palin does not have sufficient experience to be President. That means she doesn't have sufficient experience to be Vice President either.

If McCain believes what he has said about experience, Palin is not qualified. If McCain believes Palin has sufficient experience to serve as President, then he must also believe that Obama has sufficient experience to serve as President. You can't have it both ways here.

An interesting related question:

Who was the last GOP vice presidential candidate to have a resume as thin as Palin's?

mcg said...

Back to my question... I'm asking WHY the Right thinks marriage is such a swell deal for these kids. I thought the Right considered marriage a sacred institution. Now you tell me that marriage can be based on nothing more than getting a girl knocked up. What's sacred about that?

Again: the ideal situation is that Bristol not get pregnant, or anyone else for that matter, until after they are married. But it has happened, so there really is no point in dwelling on the past, but rather on what they should do now.

Marriage is sacred, yes. But so is the life they created, even thought they did not intend it, and it deserves the best shot in life its parents can give it. That means working together to give it a stable and loving home.

Apparently a 17-year old girl innately understands the facts of life a hell of a lot better than you do.

mcg said...

I'm looking at the standard that McCain set for presidential and vice presidential candidates.

When did McCain set a standard for vice presidential candidates?

mcg said...

Look, I honestly think that Obama would have made an awesome vice presidential candidate for the Democratic party. A Clinton/Obama ticket would have been unstoppable.

krylovite said...

When did McCain set a standard for vice presidential candidates?

You've been out of the loop. McCain has been yapping for months about the importance of experience, particularly national security experience. How much national security experience does Palin have? (Answer: None.)

I know what you're thinking... Hey, Palin's not running for president! Why should vice presidential candidates be held to the same standards as presidential candidates?

If that's your line of argument, you better quickly review the responsibilities of VP (hey, you can do that along with Sarah Palin!). Vice presidents are expected to assume the responsibilities of the presidency if necessary. This requirement implies that VPs should be qualified to be president. By McCain's own standard, Palin doesn't have sufficient experience to be president.

End of story. Either McCain was wrong before or he's wrong now. You can't have it both ways.

Simon said...

krylovite said...
"Who was the last GOP vice presidential candidate to have a resume as thin as Palin's?"

Who was the last Dem Presidential candidate - come to think of it, the last Presidential candidate fielded by either party - to have a resume as thin as Palin's? Your party has made a moot point of Palin's experience vel non by your top-of-ticket selection. Every time you cry inexperience, you make yourselves look ridiculous and draw attention to Obama's shortcomings.

This election finally comes down to a culture war. It's a culture war between Americans, who think Palin's a slam dunk, and wannabe europeans desperate to change this country into a a facsimile of Europe.

chickenlittle said...

krylovite said: Before you conclude that everyone else is crazy and you are the lone voice of reason, you ought to go back and reread the fable that features poor Chicken Little. You might learn something.

You can besmirch my good name until the cows come home. At least my name doesn't sound like some very cold synthetic material

krylovite said...

Marriage is sacred, yes. But so is the life they created, even thought they did not intend it, and it deserves the best shot in life its parents can give it. That means working together to give it a stable and loving home.

Apparently a 17-year old girl innately understands the facts of life a hell of a lot better than you do.


Apparently not, and neither do you. Call me a romantic, but I don't accept the notion that teen intercourse and an accidental pregnancy are a good foundation for a marriage.

You imply that marriage is necessary for the two teenagers to provide a loving, stable environment for the child. That idea isn't consistent with the facts of teen marriage. Teen marriages have a significantly higher failure rate than marriages between couples even a few years older. Teen marriage is a bad bet for providing a stable home environment for a child.

Tell me, putting aside GOP political considerations, why wouldn't it be wiser for these two teenagers to wait a few years before marriage to see if they are compatible? Why not at least wait until they graduate from high school?

chickenlittle said...

@kylovite:

Obama said yesterday: Let me be as clear as possible,I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.

Are you working this angle for yourself or what?

krylovite said...

Simon,
If Palin's experience was comparable to Obama's you'd have a point. It's not though, so you don't.

The real problem for your party is that the GOP hypocrisy is suffocating. You keep ignoring the fact that McCain's VP choice stands in contradiction to his stated national security experience requirements. Does Palin have any national security experience? No. By McCain's standard, that means she's not qualified for the job he selected her for. You have no answer for this.

Simon said...

krylovite said...
"Simon, ¶ If Palin's experience was comparable to Obama's you'd have a point. It's not though...."

You're right. She has some. He has none. Incomparable.

krylovite said...

Are you working this angle for yourself or what?

Hey, I'm not criticizing Palin's daughter. I feel sorry for her. She made a terrible mistake and now has to deal with it under very difficult circumstances.

I think the subject of Sarah Palin's position on abstinence only sex education is fair game though. She doesn't get a free pass because of her daughter's pregnancy.

I think questioning the response of the Right to the news of Bristol's pregnancy is also fair game. The Right wants to play this both ways - they want to stifle comments from all critics on the basis that this is a private family matter while at the same time heaping praise on Bristol's decision to become a teen mother and marry the father. That's an obvious double standard. You know, sort of like the other GOP double standard I've been writing about here.

mcg said...

Apparently not, and neither do you. Call me a romantic, but I don't accept the notion that teen intercourse and an accidental pregnancy are a good foundation for a marriage.

Neither do I. That's why I agree she made a mistake to get pregnant. But what's done is done.

You imply that marriage is necessary for the two teenagers to provide a loving, stable environment for the child. That idea isn't consistent with the facts of teen marriage. Teen marriages have a significantly higher failure rate than marriages between couples even a few years older. Teen marriage is a bad bet for providing a stable home environment for a child.

Well I do agree that giving the child up for adoption should be at least considered in a case like this. The causal factors that determine the success or failure of any marriage aren't fully understood, but I'll bet that good family, church, and societal encouragement help. But certainly, nobody is arguing (at least I'm not) that this isn't going to be a considerably difficult enterprise.

Tell me, putting aside GOP political considerations, why wouldn't it be wiser for these two teenagers to wait a few years before marriage to see if they are compatible? Why not at least wait until they graduate from high school?

Because there is a baby involved. "See if they are compatible?" The baby doesn't get to decide if the father or the mother is compatible with him.

To a certain degree, devotion to the marriage covenant is a choice. Talk to folks in cultures where divorce is considerably more taboo, or where marriages are arranged. I've observed more than one arranged marriage in my time, including one of the most loving couples I know. I would not argue that it's the preferable approach, please don't misunderstand---but there is something in the mindset of people who consent to it that is compelling.

Look, the time for optimal choices passed once Bristol became pregnant. You are making great arguments for encouraging people to abstain from sex until marriage. But mistakes like this happen and when they do you can't keep arguing like they didn't.

krylovite said...

You're right. She has some. He has none. Incomparable.

You're thicker than a plank if you believe that.

Obama has been a US Senator for 44 months. He represents IL, population approximately 13 million. Palin has been the governor of Alaska for 21 months. She represents fewer than 0.7 million constituents. A clear advantage to Obama here, not only in length of service and the size of his constituency, but also in the range of issues he's dealt with. Obama has experience as a national politician. Palin has none.

Obama's previous political experience as an elected representative include 8 years in the Illinois Senate representing over 700,000 constituents. Palin's previous political experience as an elected official amounts to 10 years in local government in Wasilla, population 7000. Again, a clear advantage to Obama. As a IL senator, he dealt with state issues in a populous state with a substantial budget and he represented a large constituency. As a public servant in Wasilla, Palin represented only a few thousand, dealt with a small budget and focused on local issues (such as banning books at the local library).

Chronology:

McCain criticizes Obama for lack of experience, particularly national security experience.

McCain hypocritically selects Palin to be VP although she has less experience than Obama and has no national security experience.

The GOP hypocritically defends Palin by pretending she has more experience than Obama. The GOP ignores her lack of any national security experience.

It's gotta hurt to get whupped like this Simon. :D

krylovite said...

Talk to folks in cultures where divorce is considerably more taboo, or where marriages are arranged.

Those are the same cultures where spousal abuse is much more common, right? Did you know that spousal abuse is also more common in teen marriages?

the time for optimal choices passed once Bristol became pregnant

She became pregnant before she decided she needed to marry. At that point she had a chance to make the best decision possible. I'm not convinced that marriage is the best possible decision. How can you be sure it is since you don't know anything about the relationship between the two teens? Back to the original question then...

Why is the Right applauding the fact that two irresponsible teenagers are getting married as a result of teen pregnancy?

mcg said...

Those are the same cultures where spousal abuse is much more common, right? Did you know that spousal abuse is also more common in teen marriages?

Oh, come on. There are disadvantages of every social marriage structure. No-fault divorce has ushered in a considerably higher divorce rate, and its repercussions on children are not yet fully understood.

But again, as I made clear, I am not defending the arranged marriage culture. My point is that the success of a marriage is largely a matter of choice. Such cultures prove that it is entirely possible to enter a marriage not loving, or even not knowing, your spouse, and build a robust marriage from it. That really cannot be disputed.

SShe became pregnant before she decided she needed to marry. At that point she had a chance to make the best decision possible. I'm not convinced that marriage is the best possible decision. How can you be sure it is since you don't know anything about the relationship between the two teens? Back to the original question then...

Well, right back at you. How can you be sure it isn't ?

Why is the Right applauding the fact that two irresponsible teenagers are getting married as a result of teen pregnancy?

Because there really are two decisions: either they decide to accept responsibility or they give it up for adoption.

But look, there is actually some variability within the former decision. Here's an interesting essay from another blogger.

That's where I'm gonna have to leave it because it's almost dinnertime, and I'm not gonna be surfing for most of the night.

blake said...

Apparently not, and neither do you. Call me a romantic, but I don't accept the notion that teen intercourse and an accidental pregnancy are a good foundation for a marriage.

Neither do I. That's why I agree she made a mistake to get pregnant. But what's done is done.


Meh. You know what a good foundation for a marriage is? Commitment. And you know what demands a commitment? A child.

There's really no evidence to suggest we're better off than when marriages were arranged.

Why is the Right applauding the fact that two irresponsible teenagers are getting married as a result of teen pregnancy?

You like to paint with a broad brush, don't you? Who says they're not responsible? Would you say any couple that has an unplanned pregnancy "irresponsible"?

"Made a misake" <> "irresponsible"
"Condom broke" <> "irresponsible"

We all take risks. You don't have any idea where this fits into the young couples' plans. You're just assuming.

The best option for a baby is to have his parents in a stable marriage focused on raising him.

It's not the easiest option for the parents. In a lot of circumstances--clearly not these, however--it's a decision society will strongly discourage you from making.

For that, there's a certain heroism in kids "doing the right thing", or trying to.

And I suggest the deficiency is with you if you can't appreciate that.

blake said...

I'm not convinced that marriage is the best possible decision.

Also, why do they have to convince you?

Who appointed you judge?

Are you really going to not vote for a candidate because one of her daughters decided to get married?

Really? That's even a factor?

Hell, I would've voted for Fred given a chance, and he knocked a girl up and married her. (And then divorced her 25 years later after the kids were grown. Oh, what a horrible, horrible man!)