It is so interesting to watch the reaction of the left to Sarah Palin's nomination. First it was her inexperience, then, when they remembered that Obama was just as inexperienced, it was her conservative beliefs. Now it is the fact that Palin's 17-year-old-daughter is pregnant-and not yet married.
Oh the outrage coming from the moral left! When did liberals become so outraged about unmarried mothers? Let's not forget that the Daily Kos started all this nonsense by floating a rumor that Palin's baby, born in April with Downs Syndrome, was actually born to the Governor's daughter, Bristol-the one who is expecting in December. This is the blog whose last convention was attended by most of the Democratic presidential candidates.
Based on that scurrilous rumor, Palin came out and announced that her daughter was expecting a child in December, unleashing the flood of moral outrage on the left. Not to be outdone, the media is all over this. Their tone seems to be that this was a vetting breakdown and a lapse of judgement on McCain's part. The New York Times, which ignored the "family problems" of John Edwards, while printing a story on an alleged affair by John McCain, has once again shown where their priorities lie. The Palin's daughter's unwed pregnancy has been splashed on the front page of the papers whose mastheads says, "All the news that's fit to print". CNN's Nora O'Donnell has covered this story in hysterical terms, asking if Palin should be on the ticket with an expecting daughter. Guess which side of the political spectrum is peeping into our bedrooms now.
What this all boils down to is an issue over a VP candidate who has a 17-year-old-daughter who is unmarried and expecting. Is this your issue, Mr and Mrs Left? I wonder what kind of bonehead statements we will hear from the Hollywood left, actors and actresses, many of whom have their own kids out of wedlock and proceed to celebrate each other when they have those babies.
Let's be frank. This is nothing more than a cynical attempt by the left to knock out this candidate. It is hypocrisy, pure and simple. If you want to talk about the family of a VP candidate, let's talk about Joe Biden's son, R Hunter Biden, a Washington lobbyist and Biden's brother, James Biden, both of whom are being sued for fraud by a business associate. (I have no idea what the truth is behind the lawsuit.) My point is, does this story impact on Obama's judgement in choosing Biden? Was there a sufficient vetting process there? Why isn't the news media all over this story? You know why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I've been mulling this one over, but I think that the thing with her daughter should be off limits as well. It just goes to show that this sort of a thing could happen to anybody. Personally, I wouldn't like the idea of my 17 year old daughter getting married, but I would like the idea of her getting an abortion even less. (Which is why I'd encourage her to do neither.)
Still, that has nothing to do with how I feel about Palin. For me, her religious views are far too extreme.
What about the troopergate thing? Do you think that's fair game? Seems like it might be another tempest in a teapot though.
Palin is now the Republican VP candidate. Edwards is... well, nobody now. So to compare the two stories is illogical. The Edwards story had its little 15 minutes.
I sort of doubt that Palin was forced to come out with this story right now because of some liberal blog site. They might have said that, but I don't buy it. It was bound to come out at some point anyways. The campaign chose to dump the story at a time when they knew it would get buried under the hurricane and GOP convention coverage.
Either way, I don't want to hear about any of it. I want coverage of issues. And well, none of the agenda setting media sources really offer that. Fox News is just as guilty of sensationalistic reporting, only about Democrats instead. The news media is just full of B.S. pundits like O'Reilly and Olbermann who rant on their soapboxes.
I just get my news from the BBC web site and some from a source called Democracy Now. I am not saying that the BBC is perfect, but it keeps me informed on the big stories (both nationally and globally), without all of the sensationalistic filler.
Lance,
Still learning about that. It seems the trooper tasered his wife? in a domestic dispute.
If so, he should have been fired, but we don't know the story yet.
Bryan,
If you think the bbc is not biased, I have a bridge for you to buy.
The fact is that Palin released the story because the Daily Kos was floating a wild story that she wasn't the mother of the child born in April, but that her daughter was.
So who do you think was behaving more badly, Palin for having a teenage daughter who was pregnant or Edwards?
Like I said, I don't want or need to hear about either story, really.
What's your evidence of the BBC's extreme bias other than, "They're not Fox News."?
BBc has a reputation for being anti-everything American. You listen to it, don't you know?
No, I just read their news web site. I would like specific examples, please.
I don't see any blatant anti-Americanism from them.
How the pendelum swings. In the 70 there was a first lady who, when asked by a TV interviewer what she'd do if she learned that her daughter was having premarital sex, said she hoped her daughter would be on the pill.
That seemed outrageous to many.
Today, we have a vice presidential candidate who carefully has her pregnant daughter hold the formers baby to cover up her pregnancy before it is announced to the adoring public. (hasn't anyone noticed?)
Yes, I judge Sarah Palin by the way her daughter behaved, and worse yet, the girl is forced to marry at age 17 a boy of 18. Doomed for failure just to save face. What idiots. She should have put her daughter on the pill, or did she think nice girls don't have sex? Loving family blah blah, what will the children do when mother is running the country? They are the ones holding themselves up to the rest of the nation, so they need to behave better then the rest. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me most.
Bryan,
Try this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52574
It deals with bbc's admission of their bias.
That's just an example. I suggest you check some British blogs and comments about bbc. Google the words "bbc bias", check it out and evaluate the sources.
I guess, Bryan, that you prefer bbc because it appeals to your overall philosophy. I read their web page reporting on the Palin issue. To me, it is a case of reading between the lines. Journalists are very good at writing sentences that are facts, but writing them in a way to leave the reader with a particular impression. That's what we call slanted reporting.
PS to BRyan,
This is from the bbc web site on Palin:
"However, some people in the party who already had concerns about the lack of knowledge about Mrs Palin's record may fear what other revelations lie in wait, our correspondent adds."
Sounds innocent, right? But who are these unnamed people in the party who MAY fear what other revelations lie in wait..."?
That is the kind of writing I am referring to. Was that writer trying to inform his readers, persuade or both?
I'll respond to your other posts later Gary, but for now I want to let you know that your good friends at the National Enquirer are reporting that Palin had an affair.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzRiNDZkODEwMzdkMThmOTQ1NjFjOGNlNTUzYzA1NmY
Where is the "MSM" coverage of the story?! This is an outrage!
I am aware of it Bryan, but have no further details. I don't know what the proof they have is, so I can't comment on it.
Obviously, since I was all over the Edwards story in NE, there will be comparisons in how the msm handles this. It took 2 weeks for the msm to go with it in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Let's see how they handle this.
If it's true, the best thing for her to do is admit it. If she publicly denies it, then it compounds the problem, a la Edwards.
So, let's assume it is true and she admits it. What do you want then? Should she step down? If you think she should, fine, I can respect that.
But remember a guy named Bill Clinton. (It's time to move on.)
Bryan, this is going to be an ugly campaign.
I'd rather that they ask her about when she tried to ban books from the public library when she was a mayor.
This only further confirms my fear that she's a religious nutbar. Banning books? What country is this?
Well, if she tried to ban books, what kind of books were they?
I don't know. Do you?
If it's Hustler Magazine, I would ban those from a public library too.
My point is that nobody seems to even be asking.
And considering that it was "books" and not "magazines" I doubt it was something like that. From the little bit of information that's out there, she asked about banning certain books because of the language that they used which might offend certain people.
What kind of language? Four-letter words or racist language?
Why does it even matter, Gary? You either allow freedom of speech and free access to information or you don't. You're not supposed to pick and choose.
What difference does it make? This is the sort of thing that leads to books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn getting banned.
If people are offended by language, then they can not read the book. Last I checked, censorship was un-American - VERY un-American.
Bryan,
Before I go any farther into this, I need to know what books we are talking about. Do you remember the how to book written by an anonymous hit man a few years back?
Ingrid,
Sounds like a young punk. My daughter dated a guy like that when she was younger.
Most families have these problems.
I don't need to know which books they were. I will say, flat-out that no books should be banned. It's a slippery slope when you start saying which ones are okay and which ones aren't.
A "how-to" assasination book is indeed a disturbing thought, but that's the price we pay for living in a free society. I mean, didn't you defend gun ownership? (And I agreed with you!) Why is bad to own a book about killing people but okay to own a thing that's designed for killing people? That makes no sense.
What's next? Are we going to ban Macbeth because it gives a how-to in committing regicide?
And hey, if you REALLY want to get into some serious hypocrisy, you need to check out this bit from The Daily Show. They caught several conservatives making statements regarding Palin that directly contradict what they said just a few months ago! (Like Bill O'Reilly stating that the Palin daughter issue should be off limits - even though he said that the parents of Jamie Lynn Spears (a pregnant teenager) were where the blame should be placed - even calling them pinheads!)
Lance,
We are getting off topic here. As far as the assassin book is concerned, I draw the line when it leads to murder-and that book did.
Should a public library have XXX-rated pornography on its shelves in the name of freedom of expression? I might go along with X-rated book stores for adults, but a public library? Are there no standards?
Wow. Are you really condoning censorship? Who gets to decide where that line is? You say when it leads to murder. Do you really think that a book is what does it? Do you really think that the average person would pick it up, read it and then decide that it's time to kill somebody?
Who is going to decide what that line is? Politicians? You really trust them to do that? I sure as hell don't.
And again, the EXACT SAME logic can be applied to gun ownership. You say that you draw the line when it leads to murder. How does a gun not lead to murder in the same way? Can you really not see the disconnect here? Forgive me, but you're engaging in some serious doublethink. You're either for freedom or you're not. I mean, for Pete's sakes - you write about patriotism being a good thing. How is it patriotic to be in direct opposition to the first ammendment? It's the FIRST ONE! Seems to me that the founding fathers thought that it was pretty important.
As for X-rated materials in the library - I would have no problem with that so long as strict precautions were taken to keep them out of the reach of children. If they had a special room for those materials that only adults could have access to, then that's fine. Somehow though, I doubt that any library is going to want to bother with all of that.
So, I answered that question. Answer mine about how books are more responsible for murder than guns are. (And remember - I'm not in favor of banning guns - so you can't turn this one around on me.)
And sorry if it seems as though it went off topic. Your point was that the news media is unfair in its handling of Palin. I'm saying that they're being negligent - and issues like this one are FAR more important than her pregnant daughter.
Ugh...it just kills me how supposed "conservatives" like Palin like to wave the flag in their show of patriotism, and yet they oppose the very ideals that this country was founded upon. Now THAT'S hypocrisy - which is directly related to your point.
Lance,
If you are talking about the examples I mentioned, yes, I would be in favor of censorship. There is a place for everything. I think pornography is wrong-and exploitive, but I would not legislate against it as long as it involved consenting adults.
Pornography has its place in x-rated book stores, not in a public library. There is such a thing as "community standards".
As to the hit-man book, there was a documented case where a murderer was linked to using the book as a resource prior to the act.
Lance, there has to be a line somewhere. The 1st Amendment is not absolute. You can't yell, "fire!" in a crowded theatre. You can't threaten the life of the president. Inciteful speech that is proven to directly result in an act of violence can be prosecuted.
So, if an official passed a local ordinance that says a book that advocates genocide against a group of people could not be kept in a public library, you have a problem with that?
But we still don't know what the material was she wanted to ban.
As for guns, I think in a society such as we have, law-abiding people should have the means to protect themselves, their families and their homes. Do they need AK-47s? No I don't think so.
Of course you can't make overt threats to people, and that makes sense. Still, censoring ideas is a slippery slope, and once you let the camel get its nose in the tent, the whole thing is coming in.
To try and get this back on track though - don't you think that this is something that the media should actually be asking? I mean - maybe it really is much ado about nothing. Perhaps it was a book called Here's How to Kill the President. But dangit, they should be at least asking instead of talking about her daughter.
Lance,
We STILL don't know what books she wanted banned from the local library. If I knew, I could give you a better answer. In fact, I think you are the one who has brought this all to my attention.
Actually, I don't think this is a big issue.
You're right - we don't know. That's because nobody is asking. You may very well be right, and it might not be a big deal. Maybe she looked into it but then changed her mind. I don't know - but I want to know.
However, I do think that freedom of speech issues are a big deal.
Post a Comment