Palin's Motherhood in the media

[Mark L]

Who thinks the scrutiny on Sarah Palin's family issues would be equivalent if she was a Dem?

Take a look at the NYT article by Jody Kantor and Rachel Swarns, entitled "A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers". Seems to me none of this mother stuff, or father stuff, was brought up when covering other candidates. Hillary is a Mom, right? All of the other candidates through the primaries are parents, right? It's striking that these questions are being asked of a conservative politician, can you imagine a national publication questioning whether Hillary should be seeking office given her parental responsibilities (or Bill back in the day). Teenage pregnancy is so mainstream these days (much to my chagrin) that the manner in which this particular family is confronting it, and the fact that they are so open about it, is admirable.

I'm an active parent of two 13 year old boys, my job as a 55 hour a week professional poses significant challenges in my role as a parent. Gov. Palin and Sen. Obama have the same challenge, probably magnified (though Obama's record in the Senate says otherwise). Why no questions about the impact of his potential Presidency on the rearing of his two daughters? If he's leaving it all up to Michelle, he's shirking his most important responsibility.

I see media bias, yet again. FWIW, I'm a libertarian voting for McCain because he's the least evil of the two choices.

 

[Empty Hands]

Who thinks the scrutiny on Sarah Palin's family issues would be equivalent if she was a Dem?

It probably wouldn't be equivalent. Know why? Because your average Dem doesn't make legislating family choices and "family values" the centerpiece of their campaigns. You reap what you sow.

 

[Twin Fist]

or it could be that the press will do anything to help the Obamesiah get elected

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If Hillary was the chosenone, there would be serious attention, which was evident during her run.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Who thinks the scrutiny on Sarah Palin's family issues would be equivalent if she was a Dem?

Take a look at the NYT article by Jody Kantor and Rachel Swarns, entitled "A New Twist in the Debate on Mothers". Seems to me none of this mother stuff, or father stuff, was brought up when covering other candidates. Hillary is a Mom, right? All of the other candidates through the primaries are parents, right? It's striking that these questions are being asked of a conservative politician, can you imagine a national publication questioning whether Hillary should be seeking office given her parental responsibilities (or Bill back in the day). Teenage pregnancy is so mainstream these days (much to my chagrin) that the manner in which this particular family is confronting it, and the fact that they are so open about it, is admirable.

I'm an active parent of two 13 year old boys, my job as a 55 hour a week professional poses significant challenges in my role as a parent. Gov. Palin and Sen. Obama have the same challenge, probably magnified (though Obama's record in the Senate says otherwise). Why no questions about the impact of his potential Presidency on the rearing of his two daughters? If he's leaving it all up to Michelle, he's shirking his most important responsibility.

I see media bias, yet again. FWIW, I'm a libertarian voting for McCain because he's the least evil of the two choices.

I think it has less to do with her party then her Moral Stance. The fact that they declared their platform to be the Ethical Reform platform. This implies that they both are judging all of us and willing to be judged by us.

While she has tried to spin it as Pro life and that her daughter has her support that will make her grow up real fast, there is no discussion on her part on how or why her daughter got pregnant in the first place. Where were the parents of this girl while she was having sex? What, young adults gt time alone and they get to make choices and sometimes mistakes and have to live with those. They hopefully grow from them and can be good adults. The problem for me lies in the fact that she has made it a big part of who she is and what she supports and then she cannot control her daughter or look in the mirror now and claim what she claimed on her acceptance. I only heard part and saw the write up on the bottom of the screen at lunch at work, but to me I just laughed and thought WOW what a choice. I bet someone is thinking I wish I had a Mulligan for that choice. I and I mean for running mate.

 

[grydth]

You have to wonder how many good folks of all persuasions are deterred from running for office by all the potential media intrusions and harassment of their family members..... plus now, even children are considered legitimate targets for campaign's 'opposition research'.

I think a lot of people do not want to put their families through the cannibalism that is today's politics. No wonder we have what we have for choices year after year.

 

[crushing]

[...], there is no discussion on her part on how or why her daughter got pregnant in the first place.

Well Rich, it looks like we need to have THE TALK.

:lol:

 

[Mark L]

It probably wouldn't be equivalent. Know why? Because your average Dem doesn't make legislating family choices and "family values" the centerpiece of their campaigns. You reap what you sow.

So, tell me please what exactly it is she has sown? The average Dem does make family choices as their centerpiece, it's everywhere. How about abortion rights? How about gay marriage? Welfare for generation upon generation? How about adoption for gay couples? What about illegal, oh excuse me, undocumented aliens? Let's adopt those values. You know, the hell with our laws if they happen to be inconvenient. I live in Mass., it's infested with Dems whose main purpose is absolutely to force their views on us all, and to ridicule those that have the temerity to disagree with them. You reap what the media decides you'll reap.

 

[Empty Hands]

So, tell me please what exactly it is she has sown?

She wants to make abortion illegal except when the health of the mother is threatened. She is against gay marriage. She is against birth control. She is for abstinence-only education. There is more, but those three clearly shows that she wants the state to control how families are formed, their reproductive choices, and how their children are raised.

She is in effect saying that she knows better than you do how to run your family. No surprise then that when something comes to light that makes a mockery of that, it is covered.

The average Dem does make family choices as their centerpiece, it's everywhere. How about abortion rights? How about gay marriage? Welfare for generation upon generation? How about adoption for gay couples?

Yes, but that "centerpiece" is to allow others to make the family choices they want, not to restrict them. It says "you know best" not "the state (or I) knows best". Thus, it doesn't carry the same sting of hypocrisy when they mess up.

What about illegal, oh excuse me, undocumented aliens? Let's adopt those values. You know, the hell with our laws if they happen to be inconvenient.

Not sure what that has to do with family values or this situation...

I live in Mass., it's infested with Dems whose main purpose is absolutely to force their views on us all, and to ridicule those that have the temerity to disagree with them. You reap what the media decides you'll reap.

Clearly, your thoughts in this matter are not at all biased by preconceived notions...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

You have to wonder how many good folks of all persuasions are deterred from running for office by all the potential media intrusions and harassment of their family members..... plus now, even children are considered legitimate targets for campaign's 'opposition research'.

I think a lot of people do not want to put their families through the cannibalism that is today's politics. No wonder we have what we have for choices year after year.

I'd planned on holding all my press conferences in various costumes (Darth Vader, Gladiator, a Prom Dress, etc) to distract the media.....maybe if Palin did all her conferences in a Catholic School uniform it would help? If she does, let's just hope that McCain and Obama don't follow suit.

 

[Andrew Green]

Who thinks the scrutiny on Sarah Palin's family issues would be equivalent if she was a Dem?

I bet it would be worse, at least from the conservative news sources. Imagine if Obama had a pregnant, unmarried 17 year old, think how well that would go over with Fox News and other other conservative leaning news stations. Look at what they did win Britney's sister got pregnant...

But, forgetting all that, it is relevant because Palin is a very strong advocate of abstinence only education and no birth control whatsoever. She supports these things as a way to end teen pregnancy. She uses her family as part of her campaigning.

She has no grounds to complain IMO, however her daughter is the real victim in all this, and does not deserve the attention and criticism she is going to get from it.

But here is my real issue, she claims to uphold family values right? What mother would thrust that kind of pressure on their teenage daughter? She's smart, she must have known this would hit the media. Her daughter is likely in a time of need, and she will be on the road campaigning, then if she wins taking a job that I imagine will involve very little time for family. Not to mention a special needs infant of her own. Who when she went into labour with decided to first give a speech, then get on a 8 hour flight (something most airlines forbid becuase it is dangerous and can mean emergency landings). Family values should mean putting your family first, she seems more like she puts herself and her career first.

Which is really not that bad, that is her choice. She can prioritize however she wants. But don't play up the family values "I'm a good little soccer mom" routine.

 

[Twin Fist]

you guys are flat out WRONG

Palin is in fact PRO CONTRACEPTION

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/08/30/palin-contraception/

Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she’s a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.
“I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,” she said.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/palin_and_contraception.asp




Get It Right

​

 

[girlbug2]

I think it has less to do with her party then her Moral Stance. The fact that they declared their platform to be the Ethical Reform platform. This implies that they both are judging all of us and willing to be judged by us.

While she has tried to spin it as Pro life and that her daughter has her support that will make her grow up real fast, there is no discussion on her part on how or why her daughter got pregnant in the first place. Where were the parents of this girl while she was having sex? What, young adults gt time alone and they get to make choices and sometimes mistakes and have to live with those. They hopefully grow from them and can be good adults. The problem for me lies in the fact that she has made it a big part of who she is and what she supports and then she cannot control her daughter or look in the mirror now and claim what she claimed on her acceptance. I only heard part and saw the write up on the bottom of the screen at lunch at work, but to me I just laughed and thought WOW what a choice. I bet someone is thinking I wish I had a Mulligan for that choice. I and I mean for running mate.

My kids are only 6 and 9 years old, so I haven't experienced the joy of teenagers personally yet. I do wonder though, how many parents of teenagers can truly claim to control their kids?

Yes even pastor's kids go astray from time to time, it is no secret. I don't think that because Palin takes a stand on family values but has problems in her own family, that it makes her a hypocrite. Human, maybe.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Palin, a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life, said during her campaign for governor that she is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. [Juneau Empire, "Abortion Draws Clear Divide in State Races," accessed 8/29/08 and Anchorage Daily News, "Governor’s Race: Top contenders meet one last time to debate," 11/03/06.]

I think that the idea that she's against contraception comes from this: "Sarah Palin opposes programs that teach teenagers anything about contraception. "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," she said in answering a questionnaire from the conservative Eagle Forum during her 2006 gubernatorial race. "

Course, there is the feeling that McCain-Palin will do their best to reverse Roe-vs-Wade, and maybe ever Griswold v. Connecticut.
Now that's scary stuff.

 

[Makalakumu]

Mark L and Empty Hands, I think you both have points. BOTH parties have made legislating values an issue. What people are discussing is whose values are better.

I think Sarah Palin is on the wrong end of the media. The MSM loves soap operas like this because the sheeple eat this up like candy. I also happen to think that they ARE heavily favoring Obama this year.

Would it be easier on the Dems? Probably not. You just need the right situation. Imagine the circus that would ensue if it were revealed that Chelsea Clinton had had an abortion! Can you imagine the verbal cartwheels the Clinton's would be performing?

 

[Big Don]

It probably wouldn't be equivalent. Know why? Because your average Dem doesn't make legislating family choices and "family values" the centerpiece of their campaigns. You reap what you sow.

Gee, maybe the family values of the Kennedy's (adultery, divorce,dead woman in an Oldsmobile...) The Clinton's (Adultery, etc) The Rev Jackson's (Adultery resulting in child) The Edwards' (adultery possibly resulting in child) The Gore's (100mph car chase under the influence of drugs) or the Sharpton's (False accusations (see Tawana Brawley)) don't imply much moral fiber, do they?
It is a whole lot harder to live up to a standard, when you actually believe in standards.

 

[Tez3]

The press and the media are cynical money making machines so things like this are always going to be big news. They may slant their view to whichever political party they support ie she's a good mother or she's a bad mother but they will continue to use this story to sell newspapers and airtime.
I imagine if she's not elected there will be a big rush on by the 'truelife' type magazine and programmes to be the first to get her 'exclusive story. I don't know if you have the 'Hello' and 'Ok' type magazines that are for airheads fixated with celebrities or not. Harder to get to her if she if elected I imagine.
In the UK there was a voluntary ban on reporting by the media about Tony Blairs children and the Princes Harry and William while they were growing up but once they got to 18 all hell broke loose.
Politicians here don't campaign using abortion at all, it's not an issue here nor do they tend to get into the religious or moral arguments. The big issues here are always the economy, the health service, education and crime. We elect the government to run the country in the economic sense not to have views on what we should or shouldn't find moral or not. No one would last here as a politician if they got into issues that American politiicans do.
If a politicians daughter here was in the same predicament it would be reported but it wouldn't be a scandal or very much made of it.

 

[Mark L]

Clearly, your thoughts in this matter are not at all biased by preconceived notions...

I never claimed otherwise. I am quite clearly and openly biased, as I consider the issues and the candidates and make a decision as to where I stand. IMO, if you (not you personally, but in general) haven't formed convictions and biases with regard to the important issues of our times, you're not worth talking to. The difference is I seek out the opinions and positions of those with whom I disagree, and continually consider the merit (or lack there of) of those stances. The establishment media offers no such exposition of differing viewpoints, rather promotes the Democratic/liberal stances almost exclusively.

Barack Obama's mother was unmarried and pregnant with him as a teenager, shouldn't that reflect badly on him? Of course not, because it has about as much to do with his candidacy and politics as Palin's daughters' has to do with hers.

 

[Mark L]

She wants to make abortion illegal except when the health of the mother is threatened. She is against gay marriage. She is against birth control. She is for abstinence-only education. There is more, but those three clearly shows that she wants the state to control how families are formed, their reproductive choices, and how their children are raised

She is in effect saying that she knows better than you do how to run your family. No surprise then that when something comes to light that makes a mockery of that, it is covered.

She is anti-abortion, but has taken no legislative action to curb abortions. She's taken no action to limit birth control options. She has reduced funding for teenage mothers, and has taken action against gay marriage. Her record doesn't indicate she "wants the state to control how families are formed, their reproductive choices, and how their children are raised". As to her "in effect saying that she knows better than I do", that's hyperbole on your part. If you have evidence to support your statements, I'll be happy to look at it.

Yes, but that "centerpiece" is to allow others to make the family choices they want, not to restrict them. It says "you know best" not "the state (or I) knows best". Thus, it doesn't carry the same sting of hypocrisy when they mess up.

How is she being hypocritical? She didn't mess up, her daughter did.

 

[Big Don]

How is she being hypocritical? She didn't mess up, her daughter did.

By that standard, AL Gore is responsible for his son's (Al Gore III) 100MPH car chase and subsequent arrest for DUI (drugs AND alcohol)