Originally Posted By SuperDry I know this is going to come as a big surprise to many of you, but the planned wedding between Bristol Palin and her beau Levi has been called off, some 10 weeks after their out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancy came to term. Ordinarily, this sort of thing involving the children of political candidates would not be newsworthy and might even be considered a private matter, but it seems that the one thing that Palin brought to the ticket was her family and/or conservative values. She's on record promoting abstinence-only sex education, and opposing any form of sex education that goes beyond abstinence-only teaching. This is one of several issues where we have an indication that she felt it was her role as a politician to use the force of government to implement her religious-based values on society as a whole. The record is clear that such programs are LESS effective than comprehensive sex education programs in reducing teen pregnancy and STD transmission. Although comprehensive sex education is not the total answer, it's more effective than abstinence-only education at preventing the very thing that has now happened to Sarah Palin's daughter: she's a single teenage mom.
Originally Posted By ecdc I saw this and was just too shocked and depressed to post it here. After all, if these two kids can't make it, what hope is there for the rest of us?
Originally Posted By ecdc Seriously though, this just shows how vile a politician Sarah Palin was. She couldn't very well tell the conservative lap dogs that she didn't want her daughter getting married at that age and that they were going to give up the baby for adoption. That would make baby Jesus cry. So instead she insisted they'd be getting married.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And if she'd been elected Veep, can you imagine the enormous pressure there would have been for them to get married anyway, despite the fact that they clearly weren't ready for it/didn't want to? Palin's loss was probably a blessing in disguise for them.
Originally Posted By dlkozy Too bad that these two kids had every aspect of their lives commented on by so many instead of people having the good taste to just leave them alone.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Too bad that these two kids had every aspect of their lives commented on by so many instead of people having the good taste to just leave them alone.>> Too bad for them that one of their mom's decided to run for vice president of the country. It wasn't random that the spotlight was thrust upon them. And doubly too bad for them that they violated the moral rules that were the platform upon which said mom was basing her campaign. Don't blame the public for commenting upon them. Blame the mom who put them in the public eye.
Originally Posted By dlkozy Clinton's daughter was left alone and Palin's daughter should have been left alone as well. Inspector, you bet I can blame some of the public for their nasty comments, it was out of line.
Originally Posted By gottaluvdavillains Well I think it is her mother's fault she was outed in public. Didn't her mother already know she was pregnant when she decided to run for office? Wasn't it her mother the one touting the abstinance line - all the while knowing her own daughter wasn't abstaining - and not using protection. The only person I feel sorry here for is the baby. The baby will now be raised in a broken home - It will not have two parents that were married and made a baby within that union. Instead he will be shuttled between two teenagers who should have been taught about protection and not just abstinance.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Clinton's daughter was left alone and Palin's daughter should have been left alone as well.*** What did Chelsea Clinton do that was worthy of attention? Besides, was Chelsea Clinton out there granting interviews? Bristol Palin is. As far as I'm concerned, she invited it just like her Mom did.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Besides, was Chelsea Clinton out there granting interviews? Bristol Palin is. >>> Good point. In fact, one interview last month was a Fox News exclusive: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,495244,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...,00.html</a> <<< Bristol Palin acknowledges that abstinence is "not realistic at all." She commented during a two-part interview recorded for FOX News Channel. >>> Yet, this week, Fox News has been at the forefront at criticizing any coverage of the situation, using the usual accusations about the far-left mainstream media and so on. <<< <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509168,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...,00.html</a> >>> Especially for a network that caters to the "family values" set, it's interesting that this week's coverage of the issue completely sidesteps the issue. Anyone that has read WE for any length of time will immediately notice this technique that the "social conservatives" deploy when the topic at hand goes against them: do everything and anything to deflect conversation away from the topic at hand, usually by blaming the opposition for some supposed misdeed. Especially considering the current state of the Republican party, this notion of just how much attention should be paid to the social conservatives / Religious Right is very much an open, current topic. It's quite obvious that Palin was chosen by McCain to pander to the Religious Right, and her track record in that department is quite clear, including being in opposition as an elected official to any sex education other than the abstinence-only variety. The current situation in her own family couldn't be a better example of why this is flawed, and in several ways: the notion that abstienene-only education doesn't prevent pregnancy, even in the context of a very religious family with all of the right upbringing and involvement of the church, up to and including what all too often is the result: a single teenage mom. Fox News knows very well that this whole situation does not play well to support their target audience's beliefs on such matters, so it's no surprise that "the technique" is deployed to deflect attention away from the actual issue and get people riled up about "the left."
Originally Posted By charming husband I agree with dlkozy, the nastiness towards a couple of kids was tasteless. Pick on the candidates all you want if that floats your boat-but leave the kids alone.
Originally Posted By charming husband +Anyone that has read WE for any length of time will immediately notice this technique that the "social conservatives" deploy when the topic at hand goes against them: do everything and anything to deflect conversation away from the topic at hand, usually by blaming the opposition for some supposed misdeed...+ And the libs are always playing the role of the rabid victim.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 Chelsea wasn't knocked up and doing interviews about it. From the get-go Palin used her daughter. THAT was disgusting and now this is disgusting? Please. It was only a matter of time that they'd break up. It should have never been forced on them from the get-go. Parading them around at the convention was ridiculous to me. I do not think Bristal deserves mean and nasty comments but not to run a story on her? Way too late for the leave the "child" out of this reasoning.
Originally Posted By Mr X Interesting that you put "child" in quotations. Is it really still a "child" we're talking about if the person in question is a Mother (or a Father)? There really isn't a whole lot of precedent to go on here...not many "political kids" are also young parents, AND visible AND speaking out... Hardly similar to Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter or something!
Originally Posted By DAR I've always made the decision to leave politicians kids out of my criticism and I will continue to do so. Okay unless there some 50 year old who's father was in the Senate back in the 50's but you get my drift.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 That's my point Mr X. I no longer view her as the child, as in poor child, as I deem her being referred to as.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 I don't either DAR but I find it ridiculous to tell the media to back off when she was made so public for their benefit and now it's wrong. She is granting and giving interviews - she's public domain which means people are going to discuss her negatively and positively.
Originally Posted By mele Chelsea wasn't left alone. There were tons of jokes about how homely she was. Rush Limbaugh made at least one joke about it, himself. And Chelsea was also a lot younger. She didn't get caught trying to get into bars when she was underage like the Bush Twins, either. It's simply untrue to say that Chelsea was left alone.
