WWTBAM Bored

After having witnessed six months of the most disgusting spectacle I could imagine the Democratic party could put on, I would have thought they had reached the bottom, but apparently not. The last week has sunk to new depths in the trashing of Sarah Palin.

I've been a lifelong Democrat and one of the things I hold dearest is the right to privacy and the right of a woman to choose what to do with her own body. I believe this applies to all women: to my wife, my daughters and my granddaughter. To the friends of my daughters whom we helped when they wanted to get abortions years ago. And to Sarah Palin and her daughter.

I believe Sarah and her daughter should have the right to bear children if they want to and that this decision is no one's but their own. At every step of the way, the jackals of the Obama army and the press have used this as a way to undermine her, much the same as they used every sexist trick in the book to undermine Hillary. Barney Frank feels that because Palin acknowledged her daughter's pregancy (in response to rumors that her own son was actually her daughter's), the entire Palin family is "fair game." The fact that Palin will have her daughter and soon to be son-in-law at the convention rather than hiding the kid away in some back room in shame supposedly makes them "fair game."

I have no idea what type of sex education Palin gave her daughter, and I may not agree with it if I did, but it's none of my business, and the way they have owned up to the pregnancy seems a lot more mature and responsible than a lot of girls who go into a state of denial and "baby daddies" who vanish into the woodwork at the first hint of a child on the way.

The ultimate cudgel that Obama uses to try to scare woman voters is the supposed threat that McCain and now Palin represent to women's rights. Well, the bigger threat to women's rights is Obama and company. By tacitly or overtly approving of their followers' vicious tactics in regard to two successful women politicians, they are trying to poison the well for any woman seeking a position of influence or power. And then Obama says, trust me, I have women's interests at heart.

I have no illusions about McCain's support of women's rights, but I do know that the attitude of him and his campaign toward them has been light years ahead of the Obama approach.

My only slight disagreement is your notion that the McCain campaign is more progressive on this matter.

In each announcement of the pregnancy, they made sure to add the rejoinder, "but she's going to get married to the father."

I find this attitude just as offensive as the initial intrusion into this young woman's private life.

Somehow, "getting married" makes the initial situation more acceptable to a large constituency within the Republican Party. Thankfully, this medieval view is now waning, but the Republicans have been on a crusade these past 20 years promoting that marriage is the solution to all social ills.

Marriage under these circumstances more oft than not just exacerbates a challenging situation.

Your mind is so throughly poisoned that I won't bother to make any attempt to reason with you.

However, if Palin wants to keep her family matters private and out of the public eye, why the hell is she trotting her daughter and the baby daddy out in front of the convention?

silverscreenselect wrote: I have no illusions about McCain's support of women's rights, but I do know that the attitude of him and his campaign toward them has been light years ahead of the Obama approach.

I'm not happy with the approach Obama's campaign took toward Clinton in the primary, nor am I happy with the approach Clinton's campaign took toward Obama, seeing her campaign language splashed across my television screen in Vote McCain ads and all.

I disagree that Obama's campaign indicates generically that his attitude toward women is light years behind McCain, who has chosen a running mate who is absolutely anti-choice, a position you state is diametrically opposed to yours.

silverscreenselect wrote:... and the way they have owned up to the pregnancy seems a lot more mature and responsible than a lot of girls who go into a state of denial and "baby daddies" who vanish into the woodwork at the first hint of a child on the way.

You mean how it came out only to counteract the idiotic rumors that Trig was really the daughter's baby? When would they have "owned up" to it without that rumor, I wonder? It apparently wasn't public knowledge until then. I don't count "known to the townsfolk of Wasilla" as being terribly public.

Bob Juch wrote:However, if Palin wants to keep her family matters private and out of the public eye, why the hell is she trotting her daughter and the baby daddy out in front of the convention?

Four years ago, the Republicans were criticized for not having Mary Cheney's partner on stage with her. The Democrats said the Cheneys were trying to hide her.

Every politician of either party has their family with them at big events. That means kids, grand kids, spouses of kids, and fiances. The idea is to show they are all one big happy family.

And let's be honest. Suppose a male Republican VP candidate had an obviously pregnant, unmarried teenage daughter and that daughter was the only child who was not on stage with Mr. Veep after his speech. You know what the Democratic reaction would be. Veep is a hypocrite talking about family values and then trying to pretend his own teenage daughter doesn't exist.

Obama does picture spreads in magazines with his kids. Does this mean that reporters should be interviewing the girls to see what they think about Jeremiah Wright?

gsabc wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:... and the way they have owned up to the pregnancy seems a lot more mature and responsible than a lot of girls who go into a state of denial and "baby daddies" who vanish into the woodwork at the first hint of a child on the way.

You mean how it came out only to counteract the idiotic rumors that Trig was really the daughter's baby? When would they have "owned up" to it without that rumor, I wonder? It apparently wasn't public knowledge until then. I don't count "known to the townsfolk of Wasilla" as being terribly public.

Parents of a pregnant teenager shouldn't have to "own up" to it, not on day one, not on the day the girl goes into labor. It's no one's business but the family. That applies if it is a coworker, a fellow high school student, some girl in the neighborhood or the daughter of the Governor. It's nobody else's busines. Period.

People in Wasilla like those in a lot of other small towns realize this and realize that they could be in the exact same situation in a year or two. So they don't pry.

silverscreenselect wrote:I've been a lifelong Democrat and one of the things I hold dearest is the right to privacy and the right of a woman to choose what to do with her own body.

And yet you are giving the full weight of your support to the ticket of a party that wants to deny this choice to all women, even if they have been raped or their health is in jeopardy. John McCain himself has pledged to nominate Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

I am quite sure that if Hillary had won the nomination, you would be trashing the GOP ticket instead of lionizing it. Really, the depth of your self-delusion is breathtaking.

SSS replied to BobJuch's post, then skipped over mine to reply to GSabc's.

That means he agrees with what I wrote.

Or that he's ignoring me. I'm going with the former.

silverscreenselect wrote:

gsabc wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:... and the way they have owned up to the pregnancy seems a lot more mature and responsible than a lot of girls who go into a state of denial and "baby daddies" who vanish into the woodwork at the first hint of a child on the way.

You mean how it came out only to counteract the idiotic rumors that Trig was really the daughter's baby? When would they have "owned up" to it without that rumor, I wonder? It apparently wasn't public knowledge until then. I don't count "known to the townsfolk of Wasilla" as being terribly public.

Parents of a pregnant teenager shouldn't have to "own up" to it, not on day one, not on the day the girl goes into labor. It's no one's business but the family. That applies if it is a coworker, a fellow high school student, some girl in the neighborhood or the daughter of the Governor. It's nobody else's busines. Period.

Oh, I agree. But that era ended forever for politicians with Woodward and Bernstein. Anything that could potentially be viewed badly should be made public as soon as possible, with your own explanation and in full context. It's the coverup or the perception of one that ends political careers, not the initial action.

I'm happy for the family that they support the daughter and that the father will marry her. And accidents do happen. But it does not speak well of the effectiveness of Palin's avowed "abstinence only" beliefs and teachings.

Edited to correct spelling. I knew the word was wrong, but staring at it before posting didn't help.

gsabc wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

gsabc wrote: You mean how it came out only to counteract the idiotic rumors that Trig was really the daughter's baby? When would they have "owned up" to it without that rumor, I wonder? It apparently wasn't public knowledge until then. I don't count "known to the townsfolk of Wasilla" as being terribly public.

Parents of a pregnant teenager shouldn't have to "own up" to it, not on day one, not on the day the girl goes into labor. It's no one's business but the family. That applies if it is a coworker, a fellow high school student, some girl in the neighborhood or the daughter of the Governor. It's nobody else's busines. Period.

Oh, I agree. But that era ended forever for politicians with Woodward and Bernstein. Anything that could potentially be viewed badly should be made public as soon as possible, with your own explanation and in full context. It's the coverup or the perception of one that ends political careers, not the initial action.

I'm happy for the family that they support the daughter and that the father will marry her. And accidents do happen. But it does not speak well of the effectiveness of Palin's avowed "astinence only" beliefs and teachings.

Also, condoms break, pills get forgotten or don't work, IUD's pop out. If anyone thinks that any sort of routine is foolproof, they're gonna get surprised. Speaking to the "effectiveness" part of your statement.

Obama said family stuff was not the business of his party or of his supporters.

Ritterskoop wrote:Obama said family stuff was not the business of his party or of his supporters.

Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

KT:

Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

That's been my motto for years...

Ritterskoop wrote:Obama said family stuff was not the business of his party or of his supporters.

Every time Obama declares himself above some tawdry thing his followers are doing, I'm reminded of Claude Rains in Casablanca closing down Rick's Place because gambling is going on there.

Beebs52 wrote:

gsabc wrote:I'm happy for the family that they support the daughter and that the father will marry her. And accidents do happen. But it does not speak well of the effectiveness of Palin's avowed "astinence only" beliefs and teachings.

Also, condoms break, pills get forgotten or don't work, IUD's pop out. If anyone thinks that any sort of routine is foolproof, they're gonna get surprised. Speaking to the "effectiveness" part of your statement.

With one widely believed exception, abstinence is the only 100% effective means of birth control. Teaching it as the only means of birth control and expecting all teenagers to adhere to it is wishful thinking.

And yes, I know there have been cases of pregnancy without penetration. I extend my definition of abstinence to include all activities of the couple that allow sperm to be released with the possibility of being introduced into the vagina. YMMV.

Bob Juch wrote:Your mind is so throughly poisoned that I won't bother to make any attempt to reason with you.

However, if Palin wants to keep her family matters private and out of the public eye, why the hell is she trotting her daughter and the baby daddy out in front of the convention?

Probably for the same reason that families are trotted out by politicians everywhere. That does make legal minors open to attack.

Remember ... the Republicans made Walter Mondale cry.

Those meanies.

dimmzy:

Remember ... the Republicans made Walter Mondale cry.

I thought it was Edmund Muskie. Both I guess.

ne1410s wrote:dimmzy:

Remember ... the Republicans made Walter Mondale cry.

I thought it was Edmund Muskie. Both I guess.

Based on the waterworks in Denver last week, I got the impression that it is not too hard to get a Democrat to start bawling.

I mean, Oprah cried her eyelashes right off!

Every time Obama declares himself above some tawdry thing his followers are doing, I'm reminded of Claude Rains in Casablanca closing down Rick's Place because gambling is going on there.

Now we're going to talk about MOROCCAN politics?

Is there no end to our off-topic posts?

Now we're going to talk about MOROCCAN politics?

OMG! That is so funny!

I came here to see if there was any bloodshed given the topic, but it was well after I posted the dinner for the Lounge.

I would never introduce politics into the food in the Lounge.

NO WAY NO HOW!!!!!!!!!!!

But I think that is absolutely hysterical!

christie1111 wrote:

Now we're going to talk about MOROCCAN politics?

OMG! That is so funny!

I came here to see if there was any bloodshed given the topic, but it was well after I posted the dinner for the Lounge.

I would never introduce politics into the food in the Lounge.

NO WAY NO HOW!!!!!!!!!!!

But I think that is absolutely hysterical!

I think it is nice how you tied it all together. The meal complements the discussion.