On Sarah Palin, family values and me.
The Oregon Republican Party is jibbering about how they're going to get Sarah Palin to Oregon to raise money for them. It seems to fit right in with their current mentality, frankly.
If there is a more cynical and jaded pick for the Vice Presidential nominee of the United States than what the Republican Party is trying to foist upon the citizens of the United States--then I'm gobsmacked to find it.
I've spent the last 28 years listening to rightwing chestnuts about how I'm evil and a (not-so) borderline terrorist for being pro-choice. My stances on birth control and sex-education make me the bane of James Dobson's existence. I'm not a Christian and I don't play one on this blog or anywhere else--and have been pilloried over and again as a hellbound purveyor of unpatriotic, anti-American pixels.
But if I had a child in crisis, the very last thing I would do is shove him/her into the limelight of the media circus as part of the equation in moving my career into a new trajectory. For those who have claimed the mantle of "family values"--I hereby question and scoff at your support of Sarah Palin.
Its not as if I don't understand what its like to have a wonderful and beloved job in politics. I've had that. But when my teenagers (who were not actually in any trouble or crisis) began to show signs of needing their mother's guidance and presence in a more profound way, I gave up that job to do what I knew was right for them.
Isn't that what "family values" is supposed to be all about? Or is being a secular progressive a "family-values" nonstarter in the eyes of conservatives, no matter what? And does being an anti-choice, book-banning, global-climate-change denier mean otherwise, no matter what?
Sarah Palin either deliberately placed her pregnant, 17-year old daughter directly into this ridiculous media scrutiny--putting her in the position of being eaten alive by the rabid tabloid press--or she didn't know that her child was 5 months pregnant. Neither of those scenarios speaks especially well of Ms. Palin as a "family-values" candidate, in my view. All of this for a high-profile, high-power political job.
The hypocrisy of this woman being placed as the standard bearer of social conservatives is staggering. And all of us who sport a uterus are supposed to be able to relate to this woman because...so does she? We're all supposed to be blind to what's going on with her family and embrace her alleged "pro-family" policy stances because its worked out so hunky dory for them...? Seriously?
I don't see how a "family values" man could relate to her either.
I've had conversations with male progressive politicos who have children and they won't run for higher office until their children are grown. They made a commitment to family and intend to see it through. Yet they're not considered part of the 'family-values' cadre because they won't vote to make abortion illegal and/or they embrace embryonic stem cell research..or some other anti-rightwing social thing.
It doesn't add up.
I have no idea what Sarah Palin's relationship is with her kids and its none of my business. But it is my business when Palin is trying to shovel her social conservative agenda down my throat while her own family is clearly in crisis (nobody has an accidentally pregnant teenager who is in a shotgun wedding situation with her boyfriend and not in a family crisis--I don't care what excuse they give) under the guise that her social agenda is better for the families of America.
Every time I see Bristol on television (now complete with boyfriend), it makes me cringe. I can't imagine putting a child through that media scrutiny under those circumstances. It borders on cruel to me.
How this makes Sarah Palin fit to decide policy on family and social issues is something I can't understand, much less vote for.
While those who support Palin (and perhaps some who don't) will no-doubt deride this post as "sexist" or "anti-woman--take care. I hold men to this very same standard. And I will continue to question Palin's decisions as long as the right continues to so hypocritically flog her.
|
September 5, 2008 |
Carla Axtman | Comments (130 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Sandi | Sep 5, 2008 3:48:02 PM
I am mom to 4. I even have a 17 yr old daughter (who I am happy to say is not pregnant and I talk to about everything), and I agree with what you say 100%. Nothing bothers me more then someone to drag around their "values" as better then others, as if they have done so much more for their families, when truth be told her daughter is just as pregnant as any other pregnant 17 yr old is.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Sep 5, 2008 3:50:10 PM
The Party of Family Values only cares about regulating OTHER people's lives. They themselves get to do as they wish, whether it's divorce, adultery, perjury, drug abuse, or whatever. And of course their Tremendous Concern For Human Life does not extend to human life outside the womb, where the law of the jungle the magic of free-market capitalism must reign supreme.
And then, of course, there's the aspect of the Family Values crowd that H.L. Mencken so pithily noted decades ago: a terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.
Basically the modern GOP is an alliance of these two forces: the Wall Street Republicans gleefully let the Christo-fascists have their say about social issues, because by so doing, it forces progressives to play defense while the Wall Street crowd gets on with the business of dismantling government and whatever meager safety net this society offers.
Posted by: genop | Sep 5, 2008 3:56:33 PM
" And all of us who sport a uterus are supposed to be able to relate to this woman because...so does she?" Priceless.
Posted by: Bill R. | Sep 5, 2008 4:17:00 PM
Come, git yer family values, courtesy of the Republican Party!
http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09/05/alaskans-speak-in-a-frightened-whisper-palin-is-%E2%80%9Cracist-sexist-vindictive-and-mean%E2%80%9D/
Forget McCain. This is who the Rs want to make the next "dear leader." People who have anything resembling humane, tolerant, civilized values need to mobilize to stop the Republican the extremist far right,represented by Palin and her front man, McCain, from gaining the White House and the Congress.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Sep 5, 2008 4:46:21 PM
Posted by: torridjoe | Sep 5, 2008 5:09:17 PM
Carla, I think the term you're looking for to describe your fellow uterines is "Vagina-American." apparently you V-As are supposed to stick together. Even Chris Shays said so today!
The question I have, is bringing her here to raise money for what? To compete in Oregon? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by: naschkatzehussein | Sep 5, 2008 5:20:34 PM
What have the Republicans turned me into? Formerly I would have never been interested in a story like this and held my nose when speaking of the National Enquirer. Today I was browsing the blogs and read on Wonkette via Andrew Sullivan that Mr. Palin's former business partner, the one whom the NE is investigating for having an extra-marital affair with Sarah Palin, made a motion in court to have his divorce papers sealed. The good news is that the motion was denied. I have a feeling that Karl Rove has sent an army of lawyers and operatives to Alaska to try and keep a lid on all of Palin's misdeeds as well as hypocrisies.
Posted by: Mac G | Sep 5, 2008 6:28:55 PM
A freaking Men Carla.
Sarah Palin either deliberately placed her pregnant, 17-year old daughter directly into this ridiculous media scrutiny--putting her in the position of being eaten alive by the rabid tabloid press--or she didn't know that her child was 5 months pregnant. Neither of those scenarios speaks especially well of Ms. Palin as a "family-values" candidate, in my view. All of this for a high-profile, high-power political job.
I made these similar points on a blog post earlier today calling out Sarah Palin's fraud family values.
http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/09/sarah-palins-family-values-shotgun.html
What kind of family values allows their 17 year old daughter, who lives in their home, to get engaged to a high school drop out? How about a baby sitter for the infant?
As for the brewing affair scandals, we covered that on our site as well. 2 different names have been mentioned in reports. Scott Richter tried to close his divorce file this week and it was denied. Brad Hanson is a former business partner and he had a bad falling out with Todd Palin. The rumor is because of Brad's close relationship with Sarah.
http://www.bluetidalwave.com/2008/09/palins-lover-files-to-seal-divorce.html
It has been one week and the leads into scandals are 30 deep! Great Post. I came from the Booman Tribune.
Posted by: westello | Sep 5, 2008 6:31:11 PM
I had heard the rumors about Sarah Palin and the mystery of the birth of her 5th child but when she said her daughter was pregnant, it seemed to end that mystery. But if you read about it (in newspapers, not blogs), it's pretty troubling. You have to ask:
-why would a woman who is expecting her 5th child and is governor of a "major" state not tell anyone until her 7th month (and no one suspected)?
-why would a woman who has had 4 kids and is expecting a 5th fly when her water has started leaking? (Women who have more than one child, delivery gets faster each time.) She didn't tell the airline, she could have gone to a hospital in Dallas (where she was to give a speech) and even could have gone to several excellent hospitals in Seattle where she stopped and even could have gone to one in Juneau but no, she waited to get to the hospital in her hometown.
-her daughter was pulled out of school for 4-5 months for mono and then transferred to another school right after
It all seems very odd.
Then there's the Troopergate problem AND the issue of the business partner who suddenly tries to seal his divorce records.
I grew up in a small town and one thing you learn; people know a lot about each others' business and some people even talk. I think there's a couple of people who could shed a lot of light on this. And the Reps better get out in front of this soon because it's just a matter of time.
Posted by: Andrea Cockrum | Sep 5, 2008 6:32:22 PM
If you are so "progressive", why does it bother you that a 17 year old is pregnant out of wedlock?
Does a legal marriage really matter to you?
If it does, do you support same-sex marriage?
If you do, then your friends can never be legally married in your state, so what do you do when they adopt?
You can't have it both ways.
You chose family-values and stick with your kids through thick-and-thin (though allowing them the natural consequences of their actions...and Bristol is old-enough to say "No Mom. I'm not going on stage" btw)
OR
you chose no moral parameters which means anything goes.
Palin isn't the source of your contention.
Your lack of a moral compass is your foundamental issue.
I guess you need to decide if you have one or not.
Andrea
Posted by: Rob Kremer | Sep 5, 2008 6:39:12 PM
I want to personally thank all of you. It is due to a full week of this kind of stuff on blogs, TV, newspapers, magazines and radio that Sarah Palin has an approval rating higher than Barack Obama or Joe Biden.
I can only implore you to keep it up. Please, I am begging you, keep this up.
I thank you in advance.
Posted by: nadja s | Sep 5, 2008 6:43:18 PM
After listening to her, I wanted to take a shower. She was just dripping with self-righteousness and sarcasm. Lots of cute quips and jeers about an individual who inspires so many people. Imagine this folks, if it were Obama's 17 year old daughter who was pregnant. Could you imagine the squawking, the finger-pointing, the upbraiding from the religious right? But no, if its Palin's daughter, it is perfectly all right. No bad parenting there! Plus, the Republicans seemed to deliberately play up the pregnancy and the idiot boyfriend (learn to use a condom, dude!). What makes Sarah Palin such a great example of an American? I can't think of anything, except she is very ambitious.
There is no issue that the Republicans can discuss with a straight face, since they have led the country so badly for the last eight years. So, they are reduced to insults and funny lines and a newcomer's star power.
Will voters see through this, I wonder?
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 5, 2008 6:48:21 PM
It all seems very odd.
I couldn't agree more. It now *appears* that baby Trig is in fact Sarah's. But if so, a whole series of associated bits of data just don't make sense.
My spidy sense says that she was NOT vetted and that more bombshells have yet to explode into the public consciousness.
As for the "family values" stuff Carla lays out here... I couldn't agree more with that either.
There is just such a fundamental disconnect between Palin braying in public about being all about "family values" and the way she's thrown her own pregnant daughter under the media bus. Whether deliberately or because the repercussions just didn't occur to her... as Carla says, neither speaks especially well of Gov. Palin's judgement or her values. In fact, I would argue that her choices speak much louder and more eloquently about her real values than all the speeches she'll give in her entire life.
I know Carla pretty well in real life and know that there are many other examples she could cite where she has chosen her kids over her own desires. Everyone who knows her even moderately well know that her kids come first. Period! In my book that is what REAL family values is about.
Posted by: LT | Sep 5, 2008 6:51:07 PM
Gee, Rob, where do you get your numbers?
Not exactly what this says:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110065/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Now-Points.aspx
Posted by: Rob Kremer | Sep 5, 2008 7:50:37 PM
Posted by: RW | Sep 5, 2008 7:56:26 PM
Carla, I am on Dobson's radar too, as I am a godless pagan. You know, sweatlodges, Sundance, Stompdance, general praying for ANYONE including maybe a river in trouble or a denizen of the Axis of Evil betimes; and caring about the natural way of life on this earth... I dislike it when members of my own community speak in any hatred of Christians. But Dobson's quietly-couched ranting against Native religious practices are not based in actual interaction with or study of these ways, but are presented as-if. Frankly, his lack moronic fracas scares me, as his reasonable tone causes those who get their scholarship from third hand religious pamphlets to go right along. Was he not one of the co-creators of such phrases as "pre-born" and "partial birth abortion", along with that dreadful fellow who hijacked Operation Rescue (http://www.operationrescue.org/) after his wife retired from it?
As to jibbering (gibbering is my favorite spelling) and gobsmacked: your music just made my day.
I don't much care to judge Palin's family crisis. I have been believed in and allowed hugely responsible leadership and service roles while my own son was tribulating our home to beat the band... however, I DO deign to judge her crummy reference points.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Sep 5, 2008 8:38:58 PM
Well, I guess if we have "new and pre-owned cars", then "pre-born" is just the latest abuse of the language. But then I have no moral compass and see the world in shades of gray instead of black and white.
Posted by: John Calhoun | Sep 5, 2008 8:44:42 PM
It is interesting to compare the family values of the other three candidates in the race. Obama stays close to his two girls, but Michelle or her mother are there with them all the time he is gone. Biden wanted to quit the Senate to take care of his surviving kids after the auto accident killed his wife and two of his kids. He did manage to commute home every night for the rest of his Senate career to take care of his kids. McCain, not only took in an orphan, but has kept his kids largely out of the public eye with the exception of one adult daughter who is working on his campaign.
A point that seems to be missing in all of the discussion is who has been home watching the Pallin kids while Mom was in Juneau. Her husband works on the North Slope, a long way from home. I assume that he is there on a week on/week off kind of arrangement. Was the 17 year old left in charge of the younger kids when she got pregnant? Anybody know?
Posted by: Hurria | Sep 5, 2008 9:05:30 PM
The latest poll has Sarah Palin's approval rating at 58%.
If that doesn't make us despair about this country and the people in it, what will?
Posted by: carla axtman | Sep 5, 2008 9:14:41 PM
If you are so "progressive", why does it bother you that a 17 year old is pregnant out of wedlock?
Why doesn't it bother YOU that her mother deliberately put this girl in the glare of the media spotlight--knowing she'd be torn to smithereens? That's the question here. I'm in no position to be "bothered" by Bristol's pregnancy and shotgun marriage. I don't know them--and that's not my business, as I stated.
How about a discussion on the real points?
Rob Kremer says: I can only implore you to keep it up. Please, I am begging you, keep this up.
I thank you in advance.
You can count on it, Rob. Even my very conservative sister--who may vote for McCain in the end--is bothered by this aspect of what Palin is doing. This issue doesn't sit well with a whole lot of women--and you can be damn sure I'll be talking about it more.
Posted by: Bill R. | Sep 5, 2008 9:39:43 PM
@ Hurria
Don't despair, only 40% (ABC News) of the electorate believe Palin is qualified and prepared to be president. It's 60 plus for Biden, not surprisingly. There are a few thinking people around. She's the new kid on the block and the hits are coming so her favorables have peaked and will go down.
Posted by: Ben | Sep 5, 2008 9:40:04 PM
Yes Carla, pile on pile on.
You're perfect for demonstrating the blue's morphing of Palin into the monster she is not.
Your misperception that more women have trouble with Palin than do admire her is yet another example of your troubled judgement.
I'm glad we can count on you, and yours.
Posted by: carla axtman | Sep 5, 2008 9:46:11 PM
Ben:
I will continue with this as I see fit. And given the reaction by conservatives to this issue, I can see that I've hit a nerve.
Thanks very much for your verification. :)
Posted by: Dan E. | Sep 5, 2008 10:28:02 PM
Seriously...keep it coming, Carla. The more vile rumors and innuendo and slander that you keep frothing about, the better it is for us. You will so marginalize yourselves and those that gobble up this crap...you will make an absolute victim out of Palin. Women across America...and no, I don't mean spunky gals like yourself...will bristle at this immature and desperate smearing.
Remember, politics is about multiplication, not division. How many independents and undecideds do you think the Left will win by calling Palin a whore and a hack and a "bad mommy?"
To you, the ends justify the means. Victory at any cost, right? But you will destroy a very dependable constituency in the process. I used to be like you, when I was young. But this hatred will burn you up and leave you with nothing.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 5, 2008 10:37:25 PM
LOL - you know when the conservatives pour onto a thread here that you've either hit a very raw nerve or you have got them seriously worried. Otherwise they'd just ignore it like they do most everything else around here.
Posted by: Youlikeikewithfrieswiththat? | Sep 5, 2008 10:39:14 PM
The top of the ticket is the only thing that will matter two months from now. That said, the Palin tar baby is working exactly as predicted.
Dan E. is right.
Posted by: Bill R. | Sep 5, 2008 10:39:36 PM
Oh, the victimization! Oh, the media, oh, those hateful liberal bloggers! They are so mean, and Palin is such a holy martyr for the fundamentalist cause.
That liberal media crap may play for the dittoheads, but it isn't selling around the nation. The polling says a majority of Americans don't buy that pile of feces you are selling about Palin about being mistreated. She's going off to hide for two weeks so she can find out what's going on in the world outside Alaska, and try not to be an embarrassment when she goes to the debates. In the meantime they're hiding her from the press. Well, because everyone is so mean to her! Is she really up to this?
Posted by: LT | Sep 5, 2008 10:43:58 PM
Dan, tonight Washington Week was in front of a live audience. One comment got an ovation--from Jeanne Cummings, now of Politico but formerly of the Wall Street Journal.
It was during a discussion of the "E. Media Elite" comments at the convention.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/
You can find the video/ transcript next week when they get it uploaded, but here is an approximation of what she said,
"John McCain offered, and Palin accepted, a position where this unknown woman could be president in just 60 days. She deserves no sympathy regarding questions---we have no time to fool around. She should answer every question asked because we only have 60 days to find out everything about her so that the public can make an informed decision".
I'm not sure if Palin's remarks on the surge today were her own or if she was reading from a script. I hope someone asks her next week what she thinks of Bob Woodward's new book on the Iraq war; whether she supports both Alaska Senators voting for the GI Bill which McCain was not there to vote on; an explanation of any of her actions as Mayor (incl. trying to ban classic books from the local library--I hear TIME has the list); an explanation of any veto she did as Gov.; any other policy question any reporter asks her.
A friend sent me the You Tube link for Geraldine Ferraro trying to explain her "affirmative action candidate" cracks about Obama--I believe Palin should be questioned equally strongly if anyone (reporter or town hall participant) doesn't like anything Palin says. You can call that hatred if you want to, but anyone on a national ticket (a voluntary action) gives up the right to refuse to answer questions.
And yes, I do believe the above is more important than family questions, but I did hear a woman from a local newspaper say tonight on NewsHour that the women she knows discuss how to balance work and family, so she thinks asking Palin that question is totally within bounds.
Posted by: nadja s | Sep 5, 2008 11:13:32 PM
I completely agree with what Jeanne Cummings said on "Washington Week." Palin has opened herself up to scrutiny by the national press, since she would have an immensely public position in our country. There is no reason for her play the victim - - the media is not picking on her, they are merely asking questions about her positions and her history. But she is "braying" (I love that term) that the media is being too judgemental. I heard that she will not be giving interviews at all for the time being - - just reading speeches (which she seems to do with great ease).
The strangest aspect of all this is that McCain/Palin are somehow fantasizing that they are the opponent party - - that they are against what is happening every day in Washington D.C. How can they be the opponent party when they belong to the same bunch that screwed up our country so badly? Has McCain not been a senator for all these years? Has he not supported the President in every idiotic endeavor in the last 8 years? And doesn't Palin sound just like every other extremist Republican?
Who are they fooling here? How can they possibly reinvent themselves when it was they themselves standing with Bush/Cheney all these years? We're delving in looking glass country here.
Posted by: Stephanie | Sep 6, 2008 12:08:18 AM
Hi - I'm a first time visitor to your blog. Could you please define the term "progressive' for me, as in "a place for progressive Oregonians to gather"? And what would be an appropriate (polite) descriptor for those who disagree with you? Thanks!
Posted by: Quentin | Sep 6, 2008 12:15:23 AM
Palin's glorification of her 17-year-old pregnant daughter is so completely in your face: love it or fuck off. Sound republican? No, of course not. They only use CIVIL language and have CIVIL lives and behave in a CIVIL way when they drag out their children as good examples of what they call bad behavior. It reminds me of the Cheney kid's lesbianism at a time of anti-gay referendums: none of your business when we do it. We are emanating love and following God's will, I guess. 'Love it or fuck off.', said the sitting president more than once over the past 8 years.
Posted by: Miles | Sep 6, 2008 12:17:38 AM
Sarah Palin either deliberately placed her pregnant, 17-year old daughter directly into this ridiculous media scrutiny--putting her in the position of being eaten alive by the rabid tabloid press--or she didn't know that her child was 5 months pregnant. Neither of those scenarios speaks especially well of Ms. Palin as a "family-values" candidate, in my view. All of this for a high-profile, high-power political job.
This doesn't sit well with me because I can't differentiate between your argument and the rightwing argument that we are fighting against. You're quite clearly judging Palin's personal family decisions and her fitness as a mother and arguing that they don't meet your "family values" criteria. How is this different from Dobson arguing that gay families don't meet his criteria, that mothers working outside of the home don't meet his criteria?
I understand your point that you wouldn't put your daughter through this in order to further your career. I think that's great. Personally, I passed on a promotion two months before my first child was born because I wanted to be there as much as possible, and I knew that I couldn't take the job and still be the father I wanted to be. But I'm not comfortable using my own experience to judge other fathers who decided in a similar circumstance to take the promotion. And I think part of being progressive when it comes to family values (and yes, we need to take that phrase back from the religious right) is not judging others lifestyle choices based solely on our own.
Plus, it's a pretty slippery slope. The reality is that Obama has harmed his daughters by running for president when they are so young. Anyone who is a parent knows that you just can't be absent for that much time and not have a significant negative impact. . . the phone calls and emails just don't cut it. But Obama probably only has one shot at this, and he and Michelle clearly decided the benefit outweighed the cost. I won't second guess their decision, and I'll criticize anyone who does.
But it is my business when Palin is trying to shovel her social conservative agenda down my throat while her own family is clearly in crisis. . . under the guise that her social agenda is better for the families of America.
I'm not sure the validity of one's ideas depends on the strength of one's family. After all, would you really argue that the credibility of someone who argues for comprehensive sex education in public schools would be undermined if her daughter became pregnant? Can someone who has experienced a failed relationship argue in favor of gay marriage? Palin's daughter's pregnancy really has no bearing at all on the public policy argument regarding abstinence. She's was wrong before Bristol's pregnancy, and she's wrong now.
There are lots of valid attacks on Palin that don't involve her personal family decisions. We need to focus on those.
Posted by: Oilau | Sep 6, 2008 12:22:56 AM
I wonder where Kari is?
He's right. Let's leave the kids out of this.
And doretta and Chris Lowe's aren't quite the serious intellects they fancy themselves to be: Their intellectual limitation was to assert a false framing for what was said, rather than to objectively read and respond to what was written. Gelser had even less to offer in that she responded with stereotypical rhetoric to a caricature of arguments that simply weren't being put forth, which is why she probably will go far as an empty politician.
Of course, what was written, in full knowledge that empty rhetoricians like doretta and Chris would have no interest in honestly engaging other people's arguments was this pivotal point:
3) Do you disagree that for those for which this level of family stress is apparently not very distracting the reasons also vary, but one is a selfish lack of concern for others (including one's children)?
Although several people here insisted on misrepresenting what was said by several people as a justification to spout about their own simplistic and empty ideological viewpoints, my entire argument, when read with studied objectivity, was about Palin's behavior and values: How has she behaved, given the circumstances of her life? Since that is only basis we really can use to judge her, and since we as voters have a right and responsibility to make that judgement, we have a right to know the relevant circumstances of her life.
So as I said:
The bottom line remains that voters have a moral right to know about whatever distractions or other issues may prevent a candidate from performing well in the office, and to judge them for that
In the context of what was written, a fair reading of those other issues would have led a genuine intellect to at least consider the possibility that "those other issues" are precisely to the behavior the candidate in response to distractions that is indicative of that candidate's true values.
Chris really outdid himself: He went so far as to quote that very paragraph and then directly assert he didn't care to be fair to the comment, but instead would substitute his own, presumably because being fair to the actual comment would stop him from going on and on after that as he did:
You have focused specifically on interference with her performance as V.P., e.g. "whatever distractions or other issues may prevent a candidate from performing well in the office," one variant of the "Palin has too much to cope with" argument. But other comments have not responded exclusively to your variant.
Never once was it asserted she had too much to cope with. The argument was unwavering that we had the right to judge HOW she responded to things in her life that might have caused politicians to react differently.
Carla has provided just one example of Palin's dubious values, demonstrated by HOW Plain reacted when, as the circumstances arose, she used her family as political props in a way that is quite indicative of troubling values. I agree with Carla. The fact remains, though, that Carla's argument depends completely on knowledge about Palin's family life. Obama, Gelser, Lowe, doretta, and Kristin irresponsibly tried to turn it into various double-standard arguments, with at least one intent of cynically pandering to the peanut gallery (well doretta apparently has other issues).
Posted by: Oilau | Sep 6, 2008 12:42:39 AM
Of course, the previous comment is a reference to the previous 150-comment thread that preceded this one about Palin that Kari kicked off with the commented quoted.
Miles also demonstrates the same stunted intellect where he makes an assertion Carla didn't:
You're quite clearly judging Palin's personal family decisions and her fitness as a mother and arguing that they don't meet your "family values" criteria.
Carla is fairly judging what Palin will do to gain power. Using one's family as a tool to gain power tells us something fundamental about a politician's character, as do other tactics to gain power.
What's really amusing is that Gelser, Merkley and several other favorites here have a serious jones for power that makes them much more like Palin than different. Their best qualification as politicians is that they are good at letting Blue Oregon types falsely frame issues in a way that they talk themselves into believing those pols share their values.
Posted by: Molly, NYC (and Lake Oswego) | Sep 6, 2008 3:26:24 AM
Andrea Cockrum, you dumb cluck. Nobody I ever read or heard of is particularly bothered by a pregnant 17-year-old.
Try reading it again: it's about how her mother (you know, the one who could be president if McCain won the election and--as is likely, given his age and rotten health, and the stress of the job--died) handled this, and how it reflects on her judgment.
Or more to the point, her utter lack thereof. (And McCain's as well, for selecting this demented extremist.)
Look, if Bristol was my girl, and probably if she were yours, we'd be helping her apply to colleges now. That's what most good parents do if they have middle-class-or-better resources.
Here's what a really effed-up excuse for a mother would do: Take your daughter out of school last year--when she wasn't pregnant, saddle her with primary childcare responsibilities for your special needs baby (on the apparent belief that it's okay to foist your responsibilities on others if you're sufficiently pro-life), and force her into a shotgun marriage with some loser while telling everyone who'll listen that it's her choice.
Sorry--this woman is manipulative, mean, and out only for herself. If McCain gets elected,the Secret Service will have to protect him from her, and no, I'm not kidding. She is that crazy, and she is that ambitious.
Posted by: No Blood for Hubris | Sep 6, 2008 5:54:53 AM
And she has a vicious, whacked-out Talibangelical agenda, let's remember that.
Posted by: carla axtman | Sep 6, 2008 7:20:04 AM
The fact remains, though, that Carla's argument depends completely on knowledge about Palin's family life. Obama, Gelser, Lowe, doretta, and Kristin irresponsibly tried to turn it into various double-standard arguments, with at least one intent of cynically pandering to the peanut gallery (well doretta apparently has other issues).
If the media were to not dig into the lives of high profile politicos, the entire point above would be rendered useless. But they do.
The reality is, we live in a culture where the media scrutinize. To deliberately put a child in that situation, wrap it up in a "family values" bow and sell it to us in the name of pro-choice is cynical, dubious and ugly. The fact that Palin will attempt to leverage this to further her conservative social political agenda is ridiculous.
Posted by: RW | Sep 6, 2008 8:50:53 AM
"stephanie": Depends upon whether you are speaking of the whole person and who you really are in how you live wholistically or just the political aspects of what a person espouses. Personal insight work will tell you if you truly are coherent as follows in your ways of acting, working, thinking, uttering, relating, investing and honoring relationships and social connections:
In the main, it denotes an individual who favors reform... not sure it connotes honorable behaviour on the part of that reformer.
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
Posted by: RW | Sep 6, 2008 8:54:41 AM
Carla, did you really, REALLY mean to use gobsmacked as you did? Just wanted to be certain after all.
gobsmacked
adj
Definition: flabbergasted, astounded, shocked; also written gob-smacked
Etymology: from gob 'mouth' + smacked 'clapping hand over in surprise'
With Great Love for Words,
RW
Posted by: Nina | Sep 6, 2008 9:06:33 AM
Leaving a special needs baby at home at three days old is not the kind of family values that I aspire to. I talk more about this at http://mominfaith.blogspot.com/, but I'll just say, for a mother or father to do that, I just don't respect it.
Posted by: Oilau | Sep 6, 2008 9:25:30 AM
The reality is, we live in a culture where the media scrutinize. To deliberately put a child in that situation, wrap it up in a "family values" bow and sell it to us in the name of pro-choice is cynical, dubious and ugly. The fact that Palin will attempt to leverage this to further her conservative social political agenda is ridiculous.
Exactly and agreed.
However, just to be clear it is the role of media workers in our culture to scrutinize. We have (or at least claim to aspire to have) a pluralistic, representative democracy which is based on "we the people" individually working hard to fairly and accurately judge who can be trusted with power. Not on media workers or others thinking for us.
Media workers are supposed to be witnesses on our behalf to whatever they can about those whose ask us to entrust them with power. One just has to read political reporting and commentary from the first 150 years of the republic to grasp that when the founders gave us the First Amendment, they had no concept or intent of "fair, accurate, and balanced" media workers. They intended that reporters and commentators be allowed to scrutinize as they feel is appropriate, and for us to exercise mature judgement ourselves, based on whatever is brought to our attention.
Those who make outright, or who make ambiguous arguments inviting clear implicatures (if the shoe fits, own it), what media workers shouldn't report really are trying to control what others think because they are asserting what information media workers shouldn't provide their fellow citizens. (I feel I have to emphatically say I do not read Carla here as doing that since some so blithely misrepresent others to argue their own agendas.) That also differentiates from more principled advocates who don't make ideological arguments what media workers shouldn't scrutinize, but with whom they might superficially agree that media workers should and don't report something.
Posted by: Martin | Sep 6, 2008 9:31:51 AM
I agree with all this stuff...
I heard (from tabloids) that Gov Palin has another baby, by an African father, somewhere in Oregon... And on the internet I read that Trig is actually 8 months old, and was delivered in between keynote speeches at some Governors confab on Health issues, delivered by none other than former Oregon Gov Kitz! Not only that, but Todd, her husband moved to Wasilla his Senior year of high school, and before that he dated other women as an underclassman, and he wasn't even on his varsity team his junior year. And one of his other team mates later came by to say hello to Todd, met his wife, the Mayor, and had a quickie affair with him. She should just stay home, barefoot and preggers. And how dare she accuse Obama of being a community organizer, since he was really a community disorganizer, and a successful one at that, if you just go down to Hyde Park, you would know that already. And Obama has many successful bills that he co-sponsored, jointly sponsored and even championed, like ObamaFeingold (campaign finance reform), ObamaKennedy (NCLB), and ObamaSax.
Posted by: Tiffanie | Sep 6, 2008 10:00:04 AM
I just want to speak to the family values issue you brought up. I believe the fact that Sarah Palin's daughter brought her pregnancy to her mom, rather than just going for an abortion to get rid of the situation, shows that there are strong family values in the Palin household. Bristol was obviously confident enough in her mother to know that she would love her and support her, even though she (Bristol) made a "mistake". At 18, Bristol is old enough to take responsiblity and she is demonstrating that she is. Why would Sarah Palin have to quit her job or not take a nomination? I believe this also points to strong values. Her daughter is willing to pay the consequences for her actions and take responsiblity for them. Having an open relationship demonstrates a strong family. I'm just not sure I can see how Sarah Palin's decision to run for VP shows a lack of family values. I'm sure you know that you can teach your children all kinds of stuff, but they don't necessarily obey it. That is a reflection on the child, not the mother.
Posted by: joel dan walls | Sep 6, 2008 10:54:55 AM
Well, as usual everyone is refracting events through the lens of personal experience and, especially, ideology. Those who want to find reason to slam Palin are finding it; those who want to find reason to praise Palin, ditto.
Meanwhile, I keep wanting to find a copy of that old "Life in Hell" cartoon about Manson Family Values. (First character asks the second what "family values" are, and the second replies with the usual litany of Christofascist talking points, to which the first replies, "Oh, I see: Manson Family Values.") If anyone can help, please....
Posted by: joel dan walls | Sep 6, 2008 10:54:58 AM
Well, as usual everyone is refracting events through the lens of personal experience and, especially, ideology. Those who want to find reason to slam Palin are finding it; those who want to find reason to praise Palin, ditto.
Meanwhile, I keep wanting to find a copy of that old "Life in Hell" cartoon about Manson Family Values. (First character asks the second what "family values" are, and the second replies with the usual litany of Christofascist talking points, to which the first replies, "Oh, I see: Manson Family Values.") If anyone can help, please....
Posted by: Steve Brown | Sep 6, 2008 11:07:43 AM
I just discovered you website by accident - think it's a keeper! I, too, was surprised the the Sarah Palin pick. In less than a week, there are an awful lot of question marks concerning Troopergate, and/or infidelity issues. Even if any of it goes anywhere, I see few Republicans changing their votes. John McCain doesn't deserve the trust the country may instill upon him for a few reasons, and his judgement of his running mate is the latest.
I've got several favorite reasons why he should not be our President, but the biggest is he supports torture even though he was tortured himself. Of course, according to current US Government policy statements, the prisoners we hold are being 'aggressively interrogated', so I suppose it's inaccurate to say John McCain was tortured, but rather was 'aggressively interrogated.'
It just doesn't matter to the Republicans what their candidates and membership does as long as they are Republican. Wait, I forgot, you can't be gay.
It's unfortunate the Republicans do not put the Constitution and country ahead of their party.
Posted by: RW | Sep 6, 2008 11:41:45 AM
Joel: if you subscribe to there being anything BUT a self-referential lens, you are nuts. You CAN moderate it, but, ultimately, we are all common humans and no matter what, there will always be self-reference in there... this is why, I suppose, I do not stir myself overly to rationalize around this stuff, ehhh... yet, the purely biased blather bores me but good too.
Posted by: carla axtman | Sep 6, 2008 11:54:01 AM
Rebecca:
I do have a tendency to stretch the meaning of some words within context as they flow out of me--generally not going back to revisit them unless they feel exceptionally out of place to me.
In this particular instance, I used the label "gobsmacked" in context as a flabbergasted frustration. While there are likely more appropriate word usages for that conveyance--it was the word that was sitting in my brain when I came to that part of the passage.
Posted by: RW | Sep 6, 2008 12:21:42 PM
Carla - I got all carried away by the zany music of it (same things happens during ALL of these political speeches, you see... ), then decided to check MY knowledge of your nutty, rhythmical word choice.
:)....
We may be kin in this regard.
Post a comment
Posted by: Bill R. | Sep 5, 2008 3:44:11 PM
It looks like it's going to take the Alaska legislature, the Anchorage newspaper, and the National Enquirer to vet Sarah Palin, since John McCain obviously didn't do it.
Sarah Palin, an ex sports reporter who can read a teleprompter gives a speech and the Rs come out of the woodwork hoping for resurrection. Troopergate is unraveling as the AK legislature is going to subpoena witnesses now, and there is proof that she has lied about her actions in accessing private personnel files, and firing an honorable man who refused to go along with her attempts to use her power to ruin the career of an honorable man because he wouldn't break the law. Today the Anchorage Newspaper wrote an editorial telling her to stop stonewalling the investigation.
Yep, all these family values people, when she goes down, they won't even remember her name. The R's want to fire up the culture wars again to distract us all from the economic meltdown, the debt, and the wars they started. Won't work.. Not this time!