The Heir a Parent?

I love this article and your thoughts. I do have some alternative thoughts (1) Palin is running on the "Mommy" platform and as such should be investigated in that area just as one who is running as a "Veteran" should be investigated in that area. If Palin (or her handlers) had not made that one of the first words anyone uses to describe her....you would have a compelling arguement in my eyes that it was not relevant. Many womens first comment about her is that of admiration at her ability to be a great Mom (bring home the bacon...stir it up in a pan...) (2) I submit as a Mom myself that Palin's first and longest executive job is that of Parent and since she has put it on her list of "qualifications" looking at it to see how effective she has been at accomplishing her stated parenting goals are reasonable. The facts show that the past two years have been difficult ones at the Palin household in terms of Track not ending up in college where they had planned for him to go, Bristol ending up pregnant when it obviously was not their family plan, Sarah ending up pregnant when it was not their family plan - these are all facts. Sarah has stated the family goals and stated when they were not obtained. While any family can have things that happen that are not "family plan"...when you start to have several happening over a short period of time...it generally means the responsive, competant Management (Parents) slows down - reassess and readjust. They don't take on more outside responsibilty...it just is not responsible "Management".

I too enjoyed the perspective.

It is funny on the large view, the Palin thing, because she is living her parental decisions out in real time today, and her views on sexuality and birth control et al are being lived out by her children. She will get to pay for her choices as a parent of children raised in a household founded on those selections.

It is not that different from we as a Nation paying for our own choices. The parallel is fairly obvious. I doubt that many of us are enjoying our ride at the moment. She seems like a smart gal, I doubt that she is enjoying hers either.

We all get what we ask for ultimately. She DID raise her hand.

I'm surprised the Dems haven't deified John Edwards for his actions in his personal life yet. They've pretty much just ignored him. Wouldn't those members of the pornography party turn the guy into an icon for cheating on his wife and having a child out of wedlock? I didn't vote for his ticket last time because I could smell the slime oozing off of him. Now that I know what kind of guy he really is I KNOW I wouldn't vote for him. The same goes for Sarah Palin. Her personal life absolutely applies. What if Barack Obama actually HAD all the experience necessary to qualify him for the highest office, but he was a known pedophile? Would you still vote for him because he was qualified? Please.

You want a President who is qualified to run the country. You also want to believe that your President, when faced with a moral or ethical dilemma, is capable of doing the right thing. The content of a candidate's character must be evaluated before you cast your ballot. Slam her if you will (or must), but just know that when you do that you show your true Dem colors, revealing yourself as the finger pointing America-last whiner that characterizes the left wing in this country.

So I suppose you're not voting for McCain, who cheated on his first wife, divorced her, and married the next one six weeks later, are you? Goodness, who's that leave you with?

I totally agree with your overall point here, Starshine.

What irks me, however, is that the same abstinence only, family values crowd that impeached Bill Clinton for his sexual behavior is now telling us that discussion of Palin's kid is off the table. At the end of the day, I don't care that Palin's 17-year-old daughter was impregnated by an 18-year-old thug. But I do care that the Righties get to constantly paint Dems as immoral when it suits their needs, but we are not allowed to talk about their hypocrisy.

As Bill Maher pointed out recently, if Barack Obama had a 17-year-old pregnant daughter, his presidential run would be over. Yet, Palin can just say, "Hey, it's a family matter." And that's the end of the story. This is how the media leans right.

Palin's parenting comes into question for me because she's not just advocating an "abstinence only" birth control education plan for her daughter, she's advocating it for mine. As an earlier reader said, "she's the one that raised her hand," and as far as I'm concerned the more scrutiny she gets the better!

You have a point, but since she has gone overboard presenting herself as 'hockeymom', etc., it begs for her own ability as mom to be questioned. The irony of an abstinence only advocate with an unwed 17 year old pregnant daughter is what makes politics so interesting and hilarious! This woman wants Americans to believe she is ready to take the job as president. If she does as well in the presidency as she has as Alaska's governor, a town's mayor, and as her family's sex education teacher, we can look forward to another president in denial, who uses their power for personal vendettas, uses our taxes to fight a holy war, robs from the poor, gives to the rich, and leaves an IOU in the empty coffers.

So, Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter is cause for concern, but Barak Obama's cocaine use and land deal with a convicted criminal is not?

it's kinda funny reading all the responses. You can see who is a democrat and who is repugnant. I believe if people filtered out all the B.S. and mommy images all over the t.v., they might come to their senses, but not everybody can afford to be educated in these times. I guess our money is better spent on wars than in our own country if you are repugnant.

Thanks, msasis, for putting it so well: "Palin's parenting comes into question for me because she's not just advocating an "abstinence only" birth control education plan for her daughter, she's advocating it for mine." Starshine, Sarah Palin's parenting (in)ability and its repercussions are relevant precisely because SHE does not advocate the same hands-off treatment of parents that you do. SHE believes government should make critical parenting decisions for us, such as whether my daughter should learn about the mere existence of birth control, and whether she should be allowed to have an abortion under any circumstances. Not to mention what she should be able to read at the library, or learn about science in school.

As a nation, we spend almost as much as the rest of the entire planet 'defense'. We are DEEP in financial debt, mostly to China. We are utterly dependent on cheap (mostly Chinese) overseas labor.

Nothing that has been discussed, or will be discussed in this campaign is relevant when compared to the impossibility of maintaining our current level of military and consumer spending.

And not even because no one ever asks how Dubya manages to juggle kids and a career (one assumes he doesn’t and moves on, right?).

Are you sure you didn't mean to say how his parents juggle him?

Republicans and others are calling discussions of Palin's family and pregnant daughter "out of bounds," and as Starshine suggests, I don't care about them anyway. BUT it is the Republicans who want not only to discuss what my family does in private, they want to LEGISLATE IT! They want to decide if I can lay beside a male or female - AMEND THE CONSTITUTION 4 GOD'S SAKE, or what I can do with my body, or my baby. I say they have brought these discussions apon themselves - they've brought it to the World - and we should all be discussing them and how they have played out in the private household of a wanna-be VP!
BUT the real question is: Is Palin really ready to be President of the Untided States!??!

Starshine makes some good points but I'd like to address what she writes which I will quote below:

"No one gets queasier when the party’s politicians cozy up to corporations and brandish Old Glory’s broad stripes and bright stars in an effort to distract us from waxing fuel prices and waning civil liberties."

The Democrats and their supporters are also guilty of this. Barack voted for reauthorization of the Patriot Act which is very much cause for concern. Now onto Palin and Dr. Laura.

Dr. Laura certainly had no problem pursuing her radio career while her son was growing up. Why was this OK but Palin can't be Vice-President? Where does Dr. Laura draw the line? I don't get it.

Here is why the U.S. is in trouble: Almost all the voters simply want their party to beat the other party. Hypocritical Democrats give their candidates a free pass while they vote for the war, (by the way, where is the criticism against Obama's sixteen-month plan for dealing with Afghanistan?) and vote for the Patriot Act (Lois Capps, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer supported this as well) while the Republican party pushes it's "Family Values" shtick all the while one Republican politician after another gets a free pass for their adulterous activities and also get a free pass for talking out one side of its mouth about "smaller government" while increasing the scope and size of Uncle Sam's authority.

Averageman writes: "So I suppose you're not voting for McCain, who cheated on his first wife, divorced her, and married the next one six weeks later, are you? Goodness, who's that leave you with?" To him I reply that as far as I can see, I don't see anyone in the front runners of either party that would do a good job.

The truth is that while many of you argue with each other among the Democrat-Republican polemic, politicians in both parties are sticking to us and taking away our freedoms.

NAFTA, the endless war, the Patriot Act, our open border which is all about exploiting cheap labor...needless to say, I won't be voting for either of these candidates.

It's all about personality to the dumbed-down American voters. Issues are to hard to think about.

The Repub-Dems have already sold out the American economy and jobs from this country without any tariffs. The Clinton-Bush Era supported Nafta and globalization with no protections for the American white and blue collar workers.

I wonder when people will wake up and realize that the partys over, good jobs and our former standard of living are never coming back.

The right doesnt paint the dems as immoral, they paint themselves as amoral. What did the NOW crowd say when Clinton was diddling all those women? Nothing! What did the dems say when he(Clinton) was bombing Yugoslavia, Sudan, and others? Nothing!
As for Palin, I dont think she is doing the correct(right) thing by her children, unless her hubby is there to do it.
As for Obama, he and his wife are American haters!! They care only about their own power. Just look at their associations, Mr. Wright, Ayers, Auchi, Rezko, Marzook, Farrakhan, Davis, Quadaffi, Meeks, Khalid, all of which HATE America. And last but not least Mr. Obama's belief in infantcide. He blocked a law where "living abortions" would be giving aid and comfort. If you find this to be a lie, do your research. My sister did research on this very subject while going through law school.
Dr. Laura had her child with her while on the radio, if you had ever listened to her you would know that or he was at school, never baby-sitter or day-care.
Legislate what people do in their beds? Dont think so, do what you will nobody cares. We just dont want you bastardizing marriage. Like you have with so many other things.
And its all too obvious that the left has no idea what the constitution even says. Have any read it? For one thing there is no mention of separation of church and state and it does read that we do have the right to bare arms.
Before you kill your child purely out of selfishness reasons, give it up for adoption. There are sooo many people out there just waiting for a chance to become parents. And ANY abortion is purely selfishness unless the mothers health is at risk. I know my wife had to have a D&E at 17 weeks.

And its all too obvious that the left has no idea what the constitution even says. Have any read it? For one thing there is no mention of separation of church and state and it does read that we do have the right to bare arms.

================

Oh, this is priceless.

No, the actual phrase "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. What it does say is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

So, if you're so concerned with literals, does "the right to bare arms" mean you're allowed to wear a sleaveless shirt?

lol

Rich: very funny! And hey I'm a righty but the fact that trailer trash who bare their arms with their wife beaters are more inclined to vote for the Republican ticket is not lost on me. Run Ronnie, Run!

Also, since we're in the spelling cop mode, there is no "a" in "sleeveless."

While it may not be nice, it's hardly groundbreaking to pick on the candidates children and parenting decisions. How quickly we forget the years that the Bush twins were in the news every other week, whether it be their underage drinking exploits or passing fake ID in the company of the secret service. If anything, the press has gotten "kindler and gentler" over the years. Things said about Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter were mean-spirited and petty.

The problem with simply keeping Palin's family completely out of the discussion is that her family is unfortunately tied to rumors of very poor and possibly illegal actions on her part while governor. And I won't even comment on the blatantly manipulative photo op that occurred when her daughter's baby-daddy was flown into town in time to grin for all the cameras.

The line between Palin's family and politics is murky because she's the one who has made it that way.

Take away the hype and rhetoric and take a really good look that the people who are vying to be president. There are several things that disturb me about both candidates:

Obama has been bought and sold by the Democrats to the people of this country. His candidacy is a just one big marketing campaign and most people are just too stupid to see it. Watch the man, it's all about him. I am suspicious of anybody who comes that far, that fast. This man was a nobody until he was introduced on 60 minutes a couple of years ago when he ran for the senate. He has been so busy running for president, he never really was a senator. I don't believe for a minute that he believes his own drivel. He has been packaged to be the next Kennedy.

McCain is a religious fundamentalist and is pandering to the radical right. In some ways I actually like him better than Obama. He is probably better qualified to run the country, but his overly hawkish evangelical stance overshadows what I do like. He chose a radical right running mate to satisfy the ultra conservatives. Any radical faction of a society, be it ultra conservative or ultra liberal is scary, period. History has proven that over and over. Does Palin's parenting count? Yes, it is a window into the type of person she is and how she will run the country should the worst happen. That should scare you right there! I moved to the South a few years ago, where the evangelicals rule and folks, be afraid, very afraid should the republicans be elected. You just have to live here and watch the local political ads to really understand the mentality. These people want to control every aspect of your life, just like their preachers and religion control theirs. It is their duty to save you!

So where does that leave us? Basically without a legitimate choice, and up the creek without a paddle.

Ex_Inmate writes: "So where does that leave us? Basically without a legitimate choice, and up the creek without a paddle."

Exactly. And this is the result of a dumbed-down American electorate that is more concerned about guzzling down alcohol, watching reality T.V., and getting their quick fixes than taking an analytical look at what makes a society work and what hinders it. Furthermore, the answer is not to be found in the Democrat/Republic polemic, but rather in human nature.

Ex_Inmate, I'm assuming you are former "inmate" (like Starshine, others who read her articles, and myself) of the Anacapa Insane Asylum A.K.A. the News-Press. If you are, and were there a few years back, you of course would remember Randy Alcorn. Anyway, Randy wrote a great piece called "Hooray for our side" where he boiled it all down to politics imitating high school cross-town rivalry. Simply put, people need something to be pissed of at, and getting angry at one or the other political parties satisfies the palatte of rage for many. Of course these people fail to see the multitude of faults--many of them the same as the political party they hate--in their own party.

Yes indeed, we're up the creek without a paddle and will be until Americans start connecting the dots poltically, intellectually, and spiritually.