Politics: Well that’s one way to put a blog rumor to bed (UPDATED)
You know how the blogs are buzzing with the rumor that Gov. Sarah Palin isn’t really the mother of her now four-month-old baby? Yeah, she is supposed to have faked the pregnancy in order to cover for the real mother, her now 17-year-old daughter.
Well, it turns out that this daughter is herself five months pregnant, and plans to marry the teenage father. Aides to Sen. John McCain say the announcement was made to specifically squelch those rumors. For the mathematically and scientifically challenged, this development means that it’s not possible for the baby rumor to be true. Sorry folks.
Five bucks says the proud grandparents would just as soon be dealing with the rumor than a pregnant teenage daughter.
No doubt, there will be those who want to make a big deal out of the fact that a social conservative’s unwed teenage daughter is expecting a baby.
Meanwhile, Palin has hired an attorney to deal with the investigation into efforts to get ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper.
UPDATE: Time has a wonderful, sensitive article on how this wasn’t a secret in Palin’s hometown.
September 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I think that the issue is that McCain supports “abstinence only” sex education, and now we have a very public, spectacular example that this just doesn’t work.
I’d welcome their campaign admitting that “abstinence only” is ineffective.
September 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
On the other hand, we don’t know what kind of sex education this young lady received. And no matter what KIND of education she received formally, the media and culture no doubt informed her that birth control was available at any local drug store.
There are cities and schools in which the practically give contraceptives to to kids.
So to “blame” this on McCain’s position on sex education seems a stretch.
My position is that the best policy is to give the kids all the facts about sex, including contraception and the statistics on the benefits of waiting until you are older to have babies. Parents supplement this with frank discussions with their children about morality and consequences.
But we have to understand that people have been having sex and having babies since, well, forever, and that nothing will keep accidents from happening. But at least is mistakes are make, it won’t be out of ignorance caused by deliberately withholding information,
September 1st, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Somebody has been watching too much “Desperate Housewives.”
September 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
… And some folks have seen “The Manchurian Candidate” too many times, too.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:20 pm
The photos, mono story, and Texas to Alaska flight while in preterm labor still leave me wondering. The math is tight, but some are more liberal with rounding than others
September 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
A couple of things:
1. The younger Palin is five months pregnant and “is a high school senior”. So, five months pregnant in September of her senior year puts her getting pregnant in April of her JUNIOR year. I post this only because I’m sure we’re going to hear about “someone getting pregnant so close to graduation and so close to being 18 is normal.” Now, I haven’t been able to scrounge up Bristol Palin’s actual birthdate, but it’s very possible she could have been 16 when she became pregnant, a definite “ouch” to the “family values” party.
2. Regarding the rumors about the faked pregancy: While I also think those rumors are a wild stretch, just because they SAY the daughter is five months along doesn’t mean she is. The last child was born April 18, 4 1/2 months ago, and supposedly a month early. She could be three months along for all we know at this point. We should keep track and see when this baby is born, donchya think? Also, a check here: http://www.adn.com/front/story/336402.html shows that when it was revealed she was pregnant, several people said she didn’t look it. Again, no damning evidence here, just heresay, but conversational nonetheless. There are several sites I’ve already found with comments from March that say the same thing: “Damn, she doesn’t even LOOK pregnant!” Unless she’s a freak of nature, usually at 7 months people can pick it out.
3. A look here: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/512560.html includes this comment:
“Anchorage state Rep. Bob Lynn, an Alaska delegate to the Republican National Convention, said this is nobody’s business but the Palins’.
‘I think conservative and liberal and moderate voters will all agree that it’s a private family matter,” said Lynn. “This is family life; we all have family situations.’”
My only response to that: Hmmm, didn’t seem to be a “private family matter” whenever William Jefferson Clinton was involved. Sorry, GOP, you can’t have it both ways. If you didn’t want to leave the Clinton situation private (as it should have been), you’d better be ready for the onslaught now. And remember, the Palin family themselves released the info today, so it’s news.
Billy, if I had my own blog back, I’d be ready to start posting again with stuff like this available to talk about, but I can’t seem to get to the page. Did y’all pull the plug on it? No big deal if you did, just let me know. Thanks.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
There was a glitch and I had to pick a new theme “design” for you. Feel free to pick a new one.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
BTW, I agree with Billy that this has no bearing on what McCain has said previouslyabout abstinency education and birth control, but it sure has a bearing on what both he AND Palin say from this point on.
Reminds me of the GOP convention in ‘92 that focused so sickeningly heavy on family values, and then featured the four-time divorced Lee Greenwood – who had just married for a fifth time three months before the convention – and Tanya Tucker, who just prior to that convention had her second baby out of wedlock and had just overcome cocaine and alcohol addictions. Do I have a problem with Greenwood and Tucker and their personal lives? Absolutely not, they’re free to live as they see fit. The point is simply that featuring them in the “Family Values” convention just seemed, to put it nicely, a little misguided.
And so it seems that the GOP has possibly “stepped in it” again. We shall see.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Also, as Bean Counter mentioned, there was the Texas to Alaska flight after her “water had broken”, (which turned out to be a leak of fluid, not a gusher, sorry for the visual) and I’m not aware of ANY airline in the U.S. or otherwise that likes to take women who are in labor, in the beginning of labor, or anywhere near going into labor up in the sky. For me, I find it very hard to believe that they could concoct a “fake pregnancy”, but there are indeed lots of legitimate questions being raised the more I look into this.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Yikes! Just saw my new “theme”. LOL
September 1st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I doubt very much that many teens, even “good” Christian teens, are completely ignorant about birth control these days.
The problem as I see it is not sexual or birth control information in itself, but the implication that abstinence or chastity is way beyond the ability of the average person to practice and that anyone who does successfully practice it must be weird, repressed, fanatical or abnormal in some way. That is probably more the fault of popular culture than anything else, but this mentality does creep into “comprehensive” sex education at times.
Chastity — properly ordered sexual behavior according to one’s state in life — is a virtue anyone can practice regardless of their past history. It’s also just as necessary after marriage as before, since married couples still have to practice restraint at various times (e.g. if one spouse is sick, indisposed or away from home). If a marriage ends due to death or divorce, chastity also becomes necessary, especially if you have children for whom a good example should be set (and who shouldn’t be subjected to repeated sleepovers by strange men or women who are not Dad or Mom).
Yes, chastity is difficult, but not impossible — just as getting clean and sober, losing weight, giving up smoking, getting out of debt, or doing anything else that requires long-term self-control and discipline is difficult but not impossible.
Accurate information about any subject can only do good. In the case of a Christian teen who seeks to practice chastity, knowing exactly how various birth control methods work may just reinforce their knowledge that chastity is the best choice.
Who really wants to entrust their future to a piece of rubber or some other material, or turn their entire hormonal system upside down by taking the Pill — which basically works by “tricking” your ovaries and pituitary gland into “thinking” you’re perpetually pregnant? Believe it or not, there is actually scientific evidence that taking the Pill may prompt women to be attracted to men who aren’t really suitable for them. You may think I’m making this up, but Google “Pill makes women choose bad mates” and see what I mean.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
But, B.J., I thought you likes sports cars?
September 1st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
The two things I find relatively appalling about the situation are:
a) did McCain’s campaign do NO vetting of Palin in advance?
and
b) SHE’S MARRYING THE FATHER? AT SEVENTEEN?
I’m not privy to their personal family situation, but that immediately read to me as “damage control for VP candidate,” not “18-year-olds sincerely committed to marriage” — and I’m just not sure, frankly, that people that young CAN sincerely commit to marriage. I realize that’s colored by personal experience, but … SEVENTEEN? MARRIAGE?
September 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Diane and I have been sitting here trying to imagine how loud the GOP would be screaming if Obama or Biden’s 17 year old daughter was pregnant.
September 1st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Billy, I LOVE sports cars, but I’m more of a fan of the German ones than the Italian ones. I’d love to have a Ferrari, but until I own seven houses, I’m sure my money will be spoken for in other ways.
September 1st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
This will give the Dems an opportunity to demonstrate (or not) their basic human decency by respecting the privacy of this 17 year old girl.
Any attempts to tie in the sexual behavior of a teenager to the leadership of the free world will not only backfire on the Democatic party, but will also deliver very bad kharma if you are a parent of a teenager or a teenager-to-be.
Personally, I think the circumstances deliver a positive message to right-to-life advocates. One can’t help but wonder what the Obama’s might do if they were in a similar situation.
September 1st, 2008 at 9:21 pm
BJ, who is Diane?
September 1st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Diane: Diane is B.J. lovely better half. She and I graduated from Woodruff High School mumble mumble years ago.
B.J.: Check out the new theme for your blog. If you don’t like it, just pick one. I offer well more than 100.
September 1st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Obama has already stated how he feels about this situation–hands off and said he would fire anyone in his campaign that made an issue of it. He also pointed out that his own mother was not married when she conceived him. I think some from the religious right have already been judgmental about Obama’s mother, etc. “What goes around often comes around.” Hypothetically, I would be more curious to know how Obama’s opponents would handle the news that one of the Obamas’ daughters was pregnant (if they were older, of course). Having spent my youth and much of my adult life around right-wing Christians (and count myself as one theologically but not always on social and political issues), I have witnessed how judgmental some can be to both parents and daughters who find themselves in similar circumstances. However, the examples I could cite are mostly from another era–more my parents’ generation–but not all the judgmental Christians belong to the younger era.
So far on CNN all–Democrats and Republicans–have agreed that this issue has no bearing on the election–and that the Palins’ daughter should be allowed her privacy, etc. By now–in the era in which we live, parents and grandparents just can’t afford to judge these teenage pregnancies–too many glass houses.
September 1st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Ms. Vespa, seriously. Look in the mirror and tell me that you and other GOP’ers wouldn’t have a field day if the roles were reversed. I suspect the “outcry” will be MUCH less from the Dems than it EVER would be the other way around.
This young lady is lucky that she comes from a family that is obviously well-enough off to help her support this child. But for the record, you, me, Billy, Eyebrows, NOBODY in Central Illinois has ANY idea what was going on behind closed doors with this family when they found out the news, although I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when McCain found out (and no, I don’t believe he had ANY idea of this situation when he asked Ms. Palin to run with him).
Billy, will check right now.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
BJ, I look in the mirror and feel just fine. I absolutely would NOT have a field day at the expense of a young lady and man and their unborn child. You obviously don’t know me. Some things have no place in politics. This is IRRELEVANT to anyone other than this family.
My only concern would be that if the media makes it a front and center issue, it could suggest subliminally to our young people that being in highschool, pregnant and unmarried is a pretty hip and mainstream event.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Of course they’d be all over it. To me, however, it’s not an issue at all. If anything, it’s a distraction to all the scandals Palin is currently involved in, so I personally don’t give a shit whether her good Christian daughter is knocked up or not.
That being said, I will most certainly take massive amounts of glee away from watching others ridicule the bajeezus outta this one. Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?
September 1st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Diane — I understand your concern, but you’re addressing the wrong issue. Not many teenagers are dumb enough to think it’s hip to be preggers before getting your degree. This fiasco will have no bearing on their thought patterns about it.
I don’t know about you, but the family affairs of politicians–something most teenagers don’t even acknowledge–never got me in the mood for knocking boots.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I am not worried in the least. The Dems exploiting this will only hurt them. People aren’t stupid you know.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:28 pm
“Some things have no place in politics.”
I agree. We shouldn’t have any idea who Monica Lewinsky is, should we?
September 1st, 2008 at 10:29 pm
The Dems won’t be exploiting this at all, neither will the Obama campaign. Everyone else is fair game. Now excuse me while I put on my glee-containment suit.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:36 pm
The only ones exploiting it publicly were McCain and Palin, who chose today to announce it, with Hurricane Gustav bearing down on the Gulf Coast and the GOP non-Convention starting. Now, I really wish they’d instead address the troopergate issue, her membership and support of the AIP with the platform of Alaska first and seceding from the U.S., her serving as a director of an independent political group organized by Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, her keeping the federal funds for the Bridge to Nowhere that she was for before she was against, how she believes that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by our founding fathers, and wow, I can’t keep up!
September 1st, 2008 at 10:56 pm
You can’t possibly be serious? I wouldn’t even know where to begin with that… so I won’t.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Linda, all of that is fair game. Bring it on and may the best candidate win!
September 1st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Yes I CAN be serious.
Rush Limbaugh called Chelsea Clinton “the White House Dog” on national television. That was deemed okay.
We spent MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars investigating a hummer. That was deemed okay.
Now, we have a woman who has openly championed abstinence education and doesn’t want birth control to be an option for teens who has a teenage daughter who got pregnant as a JUNIOR in high school, and she’s just been named as the VP candidate by the “family values” party, and we’re just supposed to let that slide?
It’s not about the girl, it’s about the MOM and her POLITICS. You goddamn right I’m serious. Take off the f’ing blinders for one goddamn time, will ya?
September 1st, 2008 at 11:33 pm
BJ: “Now, we have a woman who has openly championed abstinence education and doesn’t want birth control to be an option for teens who has a teenage daughter who got pregnant as a JUNIOR in high school, and she’s just been named as the VP candidate by the “family values†party, and we’re just supposed to let that slide?”
Sorry, BJ. That’s incorrect. From the Time article mentioned in the update:
September 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Ohh, oh this ought to be good. I don’t mean to leave you hanging, but in a few days we’ll all know who and what Sarah Palin really is.
September 1st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Nice.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 am
Someone on a CNN panel just brought up a side of this issue that I think does deserve some consideration. How do all of you feel about a mother who would put her 5-month pregnant unmarried daughter on a national stage (with the obvious desire to cover up her pregnancy by having her hold Palin’s own baby–already a source of rumor)–knowing full well that that daughter would soon become the topic of conversation all over the country–and on all media? How much motherly sensitivity does that show? It is difficult to argue that Palin was showing that she supports her daughter (or even was not ashamed)–when the attempt was made to cover up her physical condition–right? She will be very busy in the next couple of months (and maybe 4 years) so she won’t have much time to devote to two of her children who will be needing a mother–maybe even a full-time mother. (That is not necessarily my view–just repeating one that I have heard often.) Oh, yes–in atypical conservative Christian Republican style, the father may possibly take on that role. Please note that I was raised in a local church where a woman’s place was considered to be in the home–in fact, no woman was allowed in the pulpit of that church including a woman who–home on furlough from her lifelong missionary work in Korea–wanted to speak to the congregation about her ministry supported financially by the church. Again, the younger generation has reconsidered these earlier attitudes but the older generation is still around and are more than likely apt to be voting Republican in this election–and a case for a bit of hypocrisy could possibly be made against those who are supporting Palin now for political reasons–support that is actually at odds with their own often stated values. I’m always conflicted when I make these arguments because many such people were instrumental in my own spiritual life and instilled in me the value system which has helped me live my life. I understand why they feel or felt as they do, but I do not always agree.
I also may have misspoken earlier–I am not certain that Obama’s mother was unmarried when he was conceived or born–doesn’t make much difference, but I’m not certain because the clip was just played again and he stated his mother was 18 when he was born–not saying anything about the circumstances.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 am
Billy:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1320417.aspx
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 am
Billy:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1320417.aspx
Birth control for adults? Maybe. Birth control for teens? Doesn’t appear so.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:22 am
Anyone making political hay from this has no basic compassion and has never experienced the anguish of a parent struggling with teen issues, which often occur irrespective of the quality of the parenting. This is an intensely private matter that has no place in the public arena.
The parallel with the Lewinsky scandal would be an intern under Palin’s desk, which would be fair game. B.J., your attempt to exploit this issue is out of step with all but the most extreme kooks of your party. You should be ashamed.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:57 am
I don’t think this will hurt Palin very much with many of the older social conservatives, because a lot of them also have children (or grandchildren) who have gotten pregnant out of wedlock.
In this society it is virtually inevitable that some of the large Baby Boom and Echo Boom families (I’m thinking of families like my husband’s; he’s one of six kids, and his parents, in their mid-70s, have 15 grandchildren and several great-grandchildren) will have experienced this. The in-law’s family are a case in point in fact. Two of my siblings-in-law had “shotgun weddings” in their late teens (yes, those marriages did both end in divorce). My in-laws were devout Catholics and the SIL’s in question both attended Catholic schools until their early teens. They did the best they could, but “stuff” happens even in “good” families.
Also, I suspect (just a theory) that those raising the argument that Palin is “neglecting” her baby and her pregnant daughter by joining the campaign trail right now are not actual conservatives; they are liberals trying to tear her down with an argument they THINK will resonate with conservatives.
I consider myself socially conservative, but my husband was the stay-at-home parent when our child was young. I kept working because I had a better job with better benefits. I would assume that Mr. Palin would take on a share of the parenting duties here.
I wasn’t around at the time, but did anyone back in 1960 consider JFK and Jackie to be “bad parents” because they hit the campaign trail with a 2-year-old (Caroline) in tow and while Jackie was pregnant with John Jr.? I imagine they had to hire nannies too.
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 am
McCain has less than a week to change his mind on this nominee; nothing to do with her daughter, but she just can’t cut the mustard- I hope this is no indication on McCains’ ability to make appointments, etc.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
eyebrows, have you ever been pregnant at seventeen? Or at any age? I know a couple that married just after 8th grade at my catholic school. She was pregnant at graduation. They were married and that couple is still married today after 36 years.
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
I wish all here would realize that this really is a non-issue. There are far greater issues with Ms. Palin that make me cringe. This is not one. So we should move on to the bigger issues that this one was suppose to be the bait and switch for. This woman is a right-wing fringe fanatic who wanted (and still could based on her most recent comments about being VP would be good for her state of Alaska) Alaska to be an independent country or commonwealth or at least let the voters of Alaska decide. (The AIP’s platform is anti-American and could be considered treasonous.) She fought corruption (?) by beating the former governor of Alaska and now is embroiled in an abuse of power allegation. She was for a $369mil bridge until she was against it, purely because the state taxpayers couldn’t or wouldn’t pay for it, but kept the fed pork barrel monies that were allocated for it (where did it go?). Let’s get to those issues. Then, lets move on to the real issue – McCain. Now there’s the meat!
September 2nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
By the way, if it is indeed true that Obama has ordered his staff not to make an issue of this, and has said he will fire anyone who does — good for him.
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’ll believe it when I see it.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
I haven’t seen anyone from his staff making comments, have you? Congratulations on your newfound belief.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
So is there someone on his staff that has made an issue of it? If so, name them and his supporters will be sure to bring them to his attention. Name, please?
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Diane, you can believe it:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/09/obama-hands-off-palins-kid.html
Obama said “hands off” re Bristol Palin in NO uncertain terms yesterday in Michigan.
Though I have to admit, I’m with postsimian, wearing my own glee-containment suit. The Republican party of “family values,” the party that hasn’t done a bloody thing for the working class since they established the National Parks System in the 1960s. More like the party of “affluent family values.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?em
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I actually agree that Palin’s family drama should take a back seat, if any seat at all in this campaign. We should get a full investigation of her alleged abuse of power re: firing her appointees and pressuring state employees to fire her sister’s ex-husband.
And I think it is awesome that Obama has said “hands off.” I hope the 529s and such on the Dem side will heed him.
Bob Herbert makes a great point in the NY Times about how Dems should beware of this issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/opinion/02herbert.html?em
Then I recommend reading about the book I linked to a discussion about in my last post. Everyone’s income level has gone up, consistently and at greater averages, under Democrats, since 1948. Even the top 5% have fared better under Dems. The screaming difference is that the bottom 20% have fared far, far worse under Republicans since 1948.
So to quote a popular conservative icon (and someone I myself admire greatly if not outright worship) Jesus – “you shall be judged by how you treat the least amongst you.”
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
In response to the question about how the Kennedys fared with the Republicans in the 1960s. I very much remember. Everything Kennedy did was suspect because he was Catholic–the conservative evangelicals (minus one–me) thought the Pope would rule the world if Kennedy were elected. And I am being facetious about my being the only one–I was not. The fact that the Kennedys had two children didn’t allay any fears. I believe, if history serves me right, that election had much to do with the religious right gaining political power. I had grown up believing that “Many are called but few are chosen.” I left my church and my faith after the Kennedy election. When I returned happily to my faith a few years later and to the church of my youth for a few years, I learned that we had become part of the “Moral Majority.” Frankly, I believe there is much hope for change among young evangelicals today–some even are willing to admit to voting as Democrats.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
The messiah has said hands off so you better listen, ‘Crats. LOL
September 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Vonster thinks of Barack Obama as the messiah? Swingin’ from one extreme to the other, eh?
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Oops! I think Romney wrote the very first part of speech before he heard about Palin’s daughter. It probably was his own vice-presidential acceptance speech–and he forgot to revise it.