37 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Published Tuesday, Sept. 2, 2008 | 4:56 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2008 | 10:15 a.m.
Barack Obama may have declared candidates' personal lives (especially concerning their children) off limits, but the media didn't get the memo. Today during a satellite interview from St. Paul with Nevada GOP chair Sue Lowden, Jon asked whether Sarah Palin's parenting challenges are fair game for the media or irrelevant to her campaign for Vice President. Tune in to catch Lowden's animated reaction.
Lowden sought and received an apology from Nevada Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, who last week suggested that she didn't understand Palin's decision to seek national office, given the fact she has a newborn with Down Syndrome. That was before news of Palin's teen daughter's pregnancy dominated the dialogue.
I have little reason to doubt Palin's ability to bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and safeguard America from Russia while supporting her daughter through the challenges of teen pregnancy and ensuring the best care for her infant. But at the risk of incurring the wrath of my sisters at NOW, I get what Leslie is saying - not as a woman and mother but as a parent. A parent's first obligation, regardless of gender, is to protect his or her children. I've never heard the media glare described as particularly nurturing.
Also on tonight's program: Democratic congressional challenger Jill Derby, who hopes heavy Democratic registration will help her the second time around against incumbent Dean Heller.
What sexist comments?
I bet $10,000 if this was a man there would not be one word about his children or his children with medical problems.
Democrats are going into the gutter.
I think everybody will see that. They will see that the Democrats will try to crave Palin into tiny parts with a big smile on their faces while they do it.
Don't like it on two levels.
First, I don't think it's appropriate for any family to have five children in today's world. We are not in feudal Europe and we don't need kids to survive. 2 kids max - replace yourselves.
Secondly, it's so disingenuous for the "family values" party to stick behind Gov. Palin here. Mother of five with an absentee father (those trips to the North Slope probably weren't a daily commute) decided to take a full-time-plus job, and guess what happens? Mom's away, kids played and now there are six Palin kids, not just five.
These are family values!?!?!? Two parents with barely-at-home jobs making more and more babies?
I'll pass on those values, thank you very much.
JFNance, what did Obama say? Families are off limits and should be off limits. And they should be. But:
If the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, male or female, had a 17-year-old daughter who got pregnant, what would Republicans say? I'll tell you, it would make whatever Palin's critics are saying look like a recommendation by comparison. I'm sure you'll deny that. If so, let me cite the party's official paid propagandist, Bill O'Reilly, who declared last year that the parents of Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears were failures, in part because Jamie Lynn got pregnant out of wedlock. But I'm sure that now the Palins are the moral standard to which we should be held.
Oh, and which candidate told a nasty joke about the Democratic president's daughter? John McSame, the once courageous POW turned hypocritical, philandering political coward. It's a good thing you think families should be left out of these things.
This blog reports that its the media and the women's group NOW who are trying to push the point and question Mrs. Palin's judgement, not "Democrats". C'mon, if you're going to continue to sling hate and fear at Democrats (your choice as free Americans), at least go to a blog reporting something Democrats are doing that you don't agree with. The "broken record syndrome" is getting so pedestrian around here. Presidential Candidate Mr. Obama clearly stated his position on Mrs. Palin's family - period, end of story. Whether you personally like Presidential Candidate Mr. Obama or not - do you agree or disagree with his response and position on this non-political, non-Presidential election issue? Jesus
This is an issue that should be addressed, but in the context of her beliefs/policies/judgment. For example, if she still believes in abstinence only education after it failed her daughter then she is even more of a wrong choice to be a heart beat away from the presidency.
McCain made a poor, pandering decision in picking Palin. For the sake of the Republican party, she should step down and focus on her family and the people of Alaska.
Gee, God, in that book of yours that I read, you seemed tolerant and wise, not a racist lunatic.
I have no problem with Democrats attacking Palin because she is a mother of 5 or a mother of challenged child or what type of mother she is. I have no problem with Democrats using the club of her daughter being pregnant. Swing that club hard and often.
Go right ahead.
Please continue to say that a mother of with five children should not be vice president or have a job that requires any time to perform. Is that not what you are saying?
I think it is. Do you go around asking working women if they have children under 18? How many do you have? Are any of them challenging? Do you scream at them for working?
Perhaps you should push for a law that says if you are a mother of challenged child or a mother of five that you are barred from holding office. Why stop there? You should extend that logic to say that mothers of five children or a challenged child should not work at all. That is what you are saying.
Please continue to show your true colors for all the voters to see.
Nance -
There's a light year of difference between two parents with normal, 9-5 jobs (or even casino jobs, in Las Vegas!) and parents who are working long days every day, if they're even home at all.
I'd bet the number of nights that either Palin parent spent 4 hours at home is outnumbered by the number of nights neither did.
You better put that in your law and make it specific.
No parent should long days.....
So I guess that would preclude Obama from being president. Is that right?
Go ahead Gordon....swing away with that club.
I believe the writer said: " I get what Leslie is saying - not as a woman and mother but as a parent. A parent's first obligation, regardless of gender, is to protect his or her children."
So there should be a law.
No parent should have a job or position that requires long hours of work if they have a child that is challenging to raise.
Nope that will not work....neither parent could get a job.
Or is it?
No female should have a job or position that requires long hours of work if they have a child that is challenging to raise.
That is better. We all know that the female role is in the kitchen and in the bedroom. But that might hurt the progressive women from getting a job...nope this will not work.
Or is it really?
No Republican female who is a challenge to the feminist agenda should have a job or position that requires long hours of work if they have a child that is challenging to raise.
That is the ticket. We need to prevent Republican women from being leaders.... Yep, we got the law worked out.
I am waiting on the progressive people to give me guidance on the exact language of the law.
Us, bitter folk who cling to guns and religion to deal with our problems sometimes needs guidance from the superior progressive Obama folk.
Dang I finished all my free cheese. Hey did anybody see that cloud over Las Vegas today? It was so dark - it must have been a democrat cloud. Probably spawned from some white cloud and a thunderhead, with the thunderhead floating away never to be seen again. Good riddance too cause we wouldn't want an evil thunderhead around here. Speaking of democrats - they are so viciously evil, every single one of them. That's why I became a republican. Now I'm so moral and unbiased about race, religion and the American way. Whew....good timing too cause all my former Democrats are being zapped by lightning for being so evil. Jesus
The Double Standard crowd has gone of the rail.
This issue should never been brought up by Sheila Leslie or any other Democrat or the the left media.
Biden has kids, Reid has kids, Pelosi has kids, Obama has kids.
Most of these comments are so angry and nasty. Hello! Americans are hugely divided on personal issues - that's why the country emphasizes freedom. The real issue is a person's work experience - whether or not they contract out their child-rearing. Sarah Palin's experience seems a little light, so we have the beauty queen/fisherwoman and soldier/politician ticket to consider. If you're looking for intellect, it would seem a little lacking. Picking such a surprise VP was the Republican's way to get the small minded people all whipped up in a frenzy of "People Magazine" commentary, while the party strategists go on and set the economic and foreign policy agenda that they wish. I doubt Sarah Palin will be crafting intelligent policy in these areas. I do find it thoroughly amusing that Republicans now think it's "normal" for 17 year olds to be having sex - welcome to the real world! Sort of begs the question about their long-standing abstinence policy.
Please continue to swing away and use Palin's daugther club.
Please do.....it reveals the "progressives" true colors.
There have been tons of times other major candidates children did stuff.
It seems that only when it is Republican children that is fair game. Similar remarks were made about Bush's daughters. I never heard any remarks from anybody on Gore's kids trouble or Kennedy's kids trouble or trying to tie those kids into some policy debate.
It only seems that only Republican mother's are fair game too.
And that is coming from a crowd that is constantly calling for people's resignations because that person just say one single word wrong.
Very laughable.....
I don't really care about Palin's kids. I don't really care about Dubya's kids. I don't really care about Gore's or Kennedy's kids, either. (BTW, nance, you might have noticed that Gore isn't running. Neither is a Kennedy. Do try to keep up, 'K?)
I don't particularly care about ANYONE'S kids. (No offense intended to anyone who has them, mind you.)
That said, however, when you are part & parcel of a party that PREACHES (and undergod knows this particular party can PREACH) certain things, but then you embody certain OPPOSITE things, you'd better be prepared for COMMENTARY.
And if you can't handle the commentary NOW, what makes you think you can handle it in the second-highest office in the land?
A very wise man once said, "I think it would be a good idea" when asked what he thought of Western civilization. I tend to agree with him. That man was Gandhi.
So obviously my question from way back yesterday is that everyone thinks this non-election issue is really an issue in this election.
All this while our sisters and brothers, our mothers and fathers, our friends are fighting for freedom around the globe for what? So we can sit here and sling fear and hate and each other? They deserve better from us than that.
Democrats cry that Ensign's '97 remarks compared to yesterday's comment is that he was for stigmatizing un-wed pregnant children before he became against doing that.
Republicans are crying that they're victims of the evil democrats.
Geez, get over it already. None of our families are going to be perfect according to other people's interpretation of their own religious beliefs or values.
Are we Americans? Do we want a strong and prosperous country? Do we plan on voting in the November election? However each of us votes is our individual choice. What each of us chooses to base our votes on is our individual choice.
Hopefully, all of us here will get out on November 4 and exercise our American right to vote!
How about that Cowboys team this year!! Is Romo gonna blow it again?
Well, I'm a Jets fan (have been all my life) and I'm pretty excited. Well, sort of excited. Seems that star athletes make it to NY teams .... and then fade away.
(Except Mark Messier ... wow. I'll never forget that one. LOL.)
Sorry, sunreader; you're absolutely correct. Which is why I posted the quote that I did. "Western civilization" really WOULD be a good idea.
the left didnt worry how Biden would care for his two small children when his was wife was killed in a car crash years ago. the left has reached a new low and thats hard to surpass their earlier lows.
Good point....according to Dana Gentry logic...Biden did not "A parent's first obligation, regardless of gender, is to protect his or her children"
Well, laguna; near as I can tell, Biden wasn't VP on a ticket years ago.
I'm kind of a stickler for little points like that.
I personally think anyone with minor children still living at home should not run for such a high office as President or Vice-President. The threat of assasination by some wack-o is ever-present and how fair is that to the kids? Look how young Kennedy's children were when they were left fatherless. So many of today's kids are wild and disrespectful of authority and I do attribute a lot of that to the fact that parents spend less time at home parenting their children then they need to. It's not just mothers needing to STAY HOME it's also fathers needing to COME HOME after a reasonable work day - not 12-16 hrs. (or more) from the time they leave till the time they return. When people make a choice to become parents they need to make that their FIRST obligation - parenting their children - and if that means putting their political aspirations on hold until the kids are 18 then so be it.
The Biden example is a good sexist double standard example.
He and his children were in a car accident where his wife died. His children were still in the hospital. According to those attacking Palin (not me), he should have resign from campaigning for running for his senate seat.
I guess because Palin is a female that makes it different.
"need to make that their FIRST obligation - parenting their children - and if that means putting their political aspirations on hold until the kids are 18 then so be it."
I guess that precludes Obama from running for office or this new rule only applies to females running for office.
Biden was not in the car, and he also lost his daughter, not just his wife - may their souls be in peace.
His first decision was NOT to accept the Senate seat to devote himself to his family. But as you know, he changed his mind upon urging from his peers and colleagues.
Was it wrong? According to the republican smear, fear and jeer machine. His entire family as well as his senate colleagues across both aisles praise Biden for his devotion to family and working, by going home every night. Whether you believe that or not, simply ask his wife and 2 surviving boys. They've praised their father for always being there for them and raising them well. What the Bidens did worked for them, and successfully so. You can't argue with that although you'll continue to smear them out of hatred of the party. Every family dynamic is different - don't try applying your family ethic to other's, although you'll continue out of hatred for the party.
Do you realize that there are democrats overseas right now fighting and dying for ALL of us, ALL Americans?! Do you only accept partial freedom - only freedom that was provided to you by republican soldiers?
I do not question Biden's decisions. It is a private matter for him.
I do not think people should be questioning Palin's private family decisions either.
I guess people are more eager to question the mother's family decisions than the father's.
jfnance32 brings up a good point. Women today still carry the disproportionate burden of taking care of children,grandchildren or elderly parents. Since we are still considered primary care givers, females are continually maligned and blamed when something goes wrong while Dads are praised for just showing up-and this is a true disservice to men who are actively engaged in all aspects of parenting,caregiving etc. However, if Palin believes she has it all under control then great. I do believe however,if she wants to play with the boys she needs to be prepared for the scrutiny and deal with it. The GOP mock shock and indignation regarding any inquiry is just an act of avoidance and a transparent one at that.
Points well taken, I fully agree with jfnance's first 2 statements. But that's just me.
I kinda think it's more about the times, here and now, the way society has evolved to this point - regarding jfnance's 3rd statement.
Remember when we were kids - never wore seatbelts, got belted when misbehaved, rode on the back dashboard of the big family car on road trips, road on the tailgate of dad's truck......you can't do that kind of stuff these days cause of all the crazy groups that'll attack you and come down on you.
Kinda miss those days on one level, ya know?
No, Nance, it does NOT preclude neither Obama or any other candidate with minor children - note I did make mention of the fact that Kennedy's own children were left fatherless at too young an age. It's not about 'the woman's place in the home' with me it's simply all about people (men AND women) choosing to have children and then aspiring to jobs that will (A) Take them out of the home FAR too much and (B) Puts them in a much higher profile where the risk of an unfortunate demise is beyond the norm - in other words we all take a chance just walking out the door in the morning and driving to work - what with the drunks, red light runners etc. but putting yourself in the White House as President/VP of the United States certainly carries an additional risk, one which would probably not be present if you were not a political figure. Let's face it - there are a lot of wacko's out there - maybe some won't sit kindly to a bi-racial president or maybe some won't be able to accept a female vice-president -and this certainly puts them at risk far beyond the ordinary. If you will note I started simply by saying I didn't think ANYONE with minor children.........from that I am baffled how you came to the conclusion this was simply about a mother's place in the home.
Too bad that Ron Paul and Sarah Palin weren't the Presidential and VP candidates! That would straighten out the Federal Government!
"GOD", I wanted to say that they have medication that can help you.
But they don't.
The left was always the one to champion a womans right to be whatever she wanted to be. I guess that only applies to woman who are liberals, not conservatives.
azsk8fan....so I am not sure what you trying to say.
Should Obama and Palin run for office or they should not run for office?
laguna: "The left" STILL champions that. The "right", OTOH, USES it for political advantage and nothing more.
They don't give a rat's a$$ about "a womans[sic] right to be whatever she wanted to be". Choosing Palin had to be the single most cynical move I've ever seen.
For a group of people who are so "happy" to have this ..... this ..... SAVIOR on the R ticket you all are being quite disingenuous. I've not seen such spinning, twisting and outright lying since the midterm elections.
Oops.
Nance - the answer is NO they should NOT run for the office of President and/or Vice President of the United States - not until their children have reached the age of majority - they BOTH have a responsiblity to be their childs Mother or Father and putting ones own self up for an office of such great magnitude does not bode well for being the kind of interested, involved parent children need during their formative years. If they want to dabble in political issues and bide their time then go for it - but leave the White House alone - at least for the time being. Can't make it any clearer than that.
The evangelical right is blood thirsty. They never see a war that they don't like. They will vote for McCain who is an admitted serial adulterer. I haven't heard them condemn the pregnancy of unmarried, 17 year old Bristol Palin.
How they distort the Christian message! Jesus was a peace maker and cautioned repeatedly about the sins of fornication and adultery.
And the "faith"based initiative--giving our taxes to preachers--isn't that unconstitutional?
Plenty of heat here - and the word of GOD - hmmm - if that person pretends to be a believer he should be advised that he is engaging in serious violations of the Big Ten rules and his/her self righteousness is interesting. Ok, Palin in 2008 and Putin in 2009! hmmm, how clever! really I hope folks are still at this stuff come december so I can heat my apartment with these messages. Yes, money for preachers from involuntary taxation certainly should be unconstitutional and yes the religious right is blood thirsty and devisive - sometimes deliberately so I think as in DIVIDE AND CONQUER! Keep the faith!