« Blog of the week |
Main
| Pro-choice? »
More turnabout is fair play
03 Sep 2008 11:53 am
John McCain made unkind remarks about Chelsea Clinton. My opinion of the kind of man who makes jokes about a young girl unfortunate enough to go through puberty on the public stage is unprintable. That, and his appalling treatment of his first wife--and his apparent belief that admitting he's behaved like a first-class *@%! is the same thing as atoning for it--would make me disinclined to vote for the man even if I weren't already opposed to his political persona. I am happy to join anyone in complaining that John McCain doesn't seem to have outgrown an especially brutish adolescent character until at least the age when many people retire. This does not make me any more fond of the talk about Bristol Palin.
Please provide some examples of this "talk about Bristol Palin."
An admirable sentiment, articulately put. But please, Megan, take it a step further. John McCain proved perfectly willing to attack a young girl to score political points against her parents. Asked, indeed, invited by the media to do the same, Barack Obama not only passed up the opportunity, but roundly condemned all those who had availed themselves of it.
There's no equivalency here.
what cynic said. and the fact that palin had a pregnant teen sitting on the shelf is a new story. and the fact that mccain sprung palin on the newsmedia with no advance (and thus no advance copy written) allowed them to just write the story as it happened. not a good idea if you want to control the story.
...the operative word being "adolescent." This whole process has been a scene out of "Weird Science."
And you were aware he called his wife a cunt in public? yes?
And made a joke about rape? Yes?
And so your point is...? eh?
what cynic said. and the fact that palin had a pregnant teen sitting on the shelf is a new story. and the fact that mccain sprung palin on the newsmedia with no advance (and thus no advance copy written) allowed them to just write the story as it happened. not a good idea if you want to control the story.
Megan,
If this is an issue which is off-limits, then why do Republicans keep bringing it up?
Hrm. LMJ is right, now that I think about it...
All of the talk about Bristol is more "meta-talk"... stuff of the form "Man, you just know that if this was a Democrat, the Republicans would be saying that Bristol was an X! A Y!!! EVEN A ZED!!!!!!!!! But instead they're just talking about how Life is more important than the poor girl's right to evacuate her uterus and get a decent degree at a good college and eventually get a career going that didn't involve being barefoot and pregnant."
This isn't talking about Bristol Palin at all. It's talking about the Republicans and the hypocrisy that you totally just know is there.
But it's kinda disingenuous to pretend that someone couldn't walk away from reading that paragraph thinking that Bristol was being called an X, Y, and Zed.
Too bad for Obama he probably won't get much credit for taking the high road.
Turnabout is fair play? By that logic, the media should be attacking McCain's daughter, not Sarah Palin's.
Um, hello?
Thanks, Megan.
John McCain and Sarah Palin are both adults running for office. They have volunteered for critical scrutiny by the public.
Bristol Palin is neither an adult nor is she running for office.
But she's running WILD!
Out of control liberal WHORE!
Oh wait....she's Republican.
Nothing to see here.
His appalling treatment of his ex-wife left her with full compensation after he assumed full personal responsibility for the failure of their marriage. And his ex doesn't appear to harbor anything but respect for him afterwards. To me that speaks volumes.
I've seen plenty of men fight to the last dime in bitter, protracted divorce battles in which the verbal and physical abuse and the intimidation of the wife that characterized the marriage continued through the divorce process and beyond.
Frankly, I haven't seen or read a single report or blog post "attacking" 17-year-old Bristol Palin personally. On the contrary, I've seen endless expressions of sympathy for her predicament -- particularly the fact that it is being played out on a national stage due to her mother's (and John McCain's) poor judgment. There's been plenty of criticism (and rightly so) of McCain's failure to properly vet his running mate, and plenty of criticism of Sarah Palin's support of the (clearly, in her own family's case) failed policy of "abstinence only" education. But where are the examples of "liberal bloggers" attacking her hapless teenage daugher?
Not coincidentally, the fact that John McCain decided to tap the girl's mother for national office, on the assumption that they could simply hide her pregnancy from the press until after a marriage (consensual or otherwise) could be arranged, is evidence of exactly the same piss-poor judgment for which conservatives condemned John Edwards just a few short weeks ago.
Heterosexual relationships in ths country are normatively in between a serial monogamy and the Catholic ideal of marriage with age extending toward the latter. But of course all McCain would have needed was a couple of miracles to have already become a saint, if after 5 years beaten as a POW with no home leave he came back to his wife who had been disfigured and crippled. As she says, 'He didn't want to be 40; he wanted to be 24.'
Frank F1 says: "I haven't seen or read a single report or blog post "attacking" 17-year-old Bristol Palin personally. On the contrary, I've seen endless expressions of sympathy for her predicament -- particularly the fact that it is being played out on a national stage due to her mother's (and John McCain's) poor judgment. There's been plenty of criticism (and rightly so) of McCain's failure to properly vet his running mate, and plenty of criticism of Sarah Palin's support of the (clearly, in her own family's case) failed policy of "abstinence only" education. But where are the examples of "liberal bloggers" attacking her hapless teenage daugher?"
I keep asking for them, but apparently Megan - and morons like Jaybird - don't care if such attacks are actually occurring. Claiming they are is enough! And idiotic SuperChristians like SuperMom Palin just can't be criticized for their embrace of dimwitted policies like abstinence-only education, because that's a "personal attack."
Uh huh.
None of which is coming from the Obama/Biden campaign. Indeed, some of it is coming from the McCain/Palin campaign according Howie Kurtz. Of course, McArdle fails to recognize this. Poor Megan, hoisted again by her own 2X4.
LMJ, I was *AGREEING* with you.
People aren't talking about Bristol, really, they're talking about how the Republicans would talk about Bristol if Bristol were the child of a Democrat.
And I point to MMs post a couple below mine as evidence for the stuff that is going on.
But, again, I say it's disingenuous to walk away from posts like MMs thinking "there's no way that anyone could honestly see this as an attack on Bristol".
Megan? Please respond to 11:59 am and 12:38 pm. I've been following this story since it first erupted over the weekend and I haven't seen anyone attacking Bristol. The very the fact that all this attention is descending upon her must FEEL like one to her, making an already difficult situation far more so, and for that I'm profoundly sorry for her. But the idea that this situation could be hidden for the duration of the campaign is ludicrous, as is the even crazier notion that it would be a media sensation when it happened. So much so that I could easily suspect the cynical Republican political operatives running this campaign to have... well but that's a different topic. The big issue here is: SHOW ME.
Where are the attacks on Bristol, herself, personally, that you're talking about? Virtually everything I've read holds her blameless and highly sympathetic. The vitriol has all been directed at McCain for acting on impulse and doing a shoddy vetting job, and to some degree at her mom for going ahead and accepting the nomination, thereby putting her daughter in this situation.
Why is there a full time contingent of people criticizing everything that Megan does and does not say? Jeez.
It seems to me that the only campaign talking about Bristol is the McCain campaign and they're just cynically trying to stop the legitimate questions about Gov. Palin by crying foul for something that isn't occurring. Please name me any Democrats who are attacking Bristol.
One might even think that the McCain camp's emphasis on the pregnancy issue is an effort to define the pushback on Palin as something other than concerns about her experience, the vetting process, her faux reformer credentials, her questionable exercise of the power of her office, her extreme positions on social issues and so on.
My depression this morning is due to the fear that they will get away with it.
Am glad, though, to see someone willing to remind us of McCain's despicable behavior in the psat.
The McCain campaign unnecessarily "outed" Bristol Palin. They portrayed it as a response to rumors about the parentage of Sarah Palin's fifth child, but those rumors could have been quashed by producing a birth certificate and a statement from the doctor who delivered the child.
It was McCain and Palin who thrust Bristol Palin and her boyfriend, and their unborn child, into the spotlight.
Jaybird replies: "LMJ, I was *AGREEING* with you.
People aren't talking about Bristol, really, they're talking about how the Republicans would talk about Bristol if Bristol were the child of a Democrat.
And I point to MMs post a couple below mine as evidence for the stuff that is going on.
But, again, I say it's disingenuous to walk away from posts like MMs thinking "there's no way that anyone could honestly see this as an attack on Bristol"."
Really? I say no one with an intellect worthy of the word could reasonably view it as an attack on Bristol. I'm sure any number of hopeless idiots could honestly view it as such an attack, but I'm not in the habit of giving a rat's ass about the views of hopeless idiots.
McCain wasn't worth any money when he was with his first wife.
His family was. According to Wikipedia:
LMJ, I'm not saying that MMs doesn't have a great deal of plausible deniability.
I'm just saying that the people who argue that no one could read that as an attack on the girl herself are being disingenuous.
Links? where are the links?
Yeah, but I think the pre-scandal scandal was worse.
Look, if someone had said (and I recognize that this comment puts you in an odd place) that Andrew Sullivan -- whose writing I have admired -- was so loathsomely singleminded in the pursuit of political points that he would on the basis of flimsy nonevidence construct a conspiracy theory to attack a woman by impugning her daughter's honesty and the legitimacy of her developmentally-disabled child -- well, look, it's so over the top, it's something you'd say as a kind of hyperbolic joke, like saying "Andrew Sullivan's so nasty he goes home and writes cute little songs about how much he loves Hitler" or something. I mean, it's awful beyond serious credibility.
And yet -- he went there. Just like that. And I've worked on Democratic campaigns and am more or less in the Obama voting pool -- but Sullivan pulled off easy the most digusting political slime throwing I can think of. Which is impressive because with his other hand he's wagging his finger at Karl Rove, who, terrible though he is, hasn't gone this far (McCain's "nonwhite daughter," even, not really being this in this league -- though I admit I'd not have thought that you could get uglier than that).
I suppose this has become par for the course at The Atlantic, where Sullivan freakishly puts out the idea that if McCain saw someone make a cross in the dirt and didn't hype the story early on, he's violating his Christian duty to "bear witness" -- at the same time as he chastises the rigid, unforgiving doctrinaire "Christianists."
Look, I love "the Atlantic." I love that Oliver Wendell Holmes named it. I love that it has the best crossword in print (or did). I love that it has great fiction in all the issues (or did) instead of frivolous crud like advice columns. But it has also become the house organ of the worst slime thrower in American politics and a soapbox for a man with scruples apparently so low that he, no kiddin', goes after retarded babies to serve his ends. God almighty! At least apologize, somebody, now that that one was wrong!
I've lost all respect for Sullivan. And those people out there who think this stuff is legit, you have zero credibility when you talk about the need for government to protect the weak and the needy, nor when they tell me who is and isn't "out of touch." And I'm sure there are clever young lads out there who might ask just as a purely philosophical point, y'know what it is that makes this attack so bad; I don't know what to tell you other than that that ploy is transparent. If you've been raised with any morals at all -- this line of attack crossed them.
And, to his eternal credit, Barack Obama seems to realize that in his gut. The guy has a wife and kids and, like me, would probably pound Sullivan if the little worm went after his wife, daughter, and developmentally challenged son, on really no basis. Were it otherwise I'd be rooting for Obama to lose.
I realize the position people like Megan McArdle and Ross Douthat are in is...uncomfortable, and unpleasant. I haven't got great answers. But still I think you've been more mealy-mouthed and indirect here than I'm comfortable with. It's not something I'm absolutist about, but I think if you're trying to make a point, Ms. McArdle -- then make it, and let people bitch and moan about that.
Jaybird,
You fucking idiot - it's a parody. It's the kind of thing Megan claims is everywhere, but I haven't seen anywhere.
Sanjay,
It's ironic you are attacking Megan, since you also just used endless paragraphs to say fuck all.
I dont understand why the McCain camp doesn't want us to talk about Sarah Palin's family. The Obama camp has no right to politicize it, but - as voters - don't we deserve the right to peel away any layers that politicians use to cover up their real selves. For now, everyone is yelling at Sarah Palin and not Bristol, which is the just way to go as voters.
Ah, I wasn't able to tell that it was a parody.
It struck me more as a great example of the mockery of Republican hypocrisy for not attacking Palin's daughter.
So is it now the case that no one is even talking about Republican hypocrisy in not attacking Palin's daughter, there are only parodies of the same?
Birdjay replies: "LMJ, I'm not saying that MMs doesn't have a great deal of plausible deniability.
I'm just saying that the people who argue that no one could read that as an attack on the girl herself are being disingenuous."
I think that when reasonable people say "no one could read that as an attack on the girl herself" they're not being disingenuous. They're just assuming that reasonable people will know that they're limiting the observation to the views of other reasonable people.
You're nitpicking here in a blitheringly inane fashion.
"Everyone knows the moon isn't made out of green cheese." Damn, I'm disingenuous!
By refusing to repeat the comment McCain made, you protect him from any direct criticism more than you protect Chelsea Clinton.
Once again the political strategists paid by the republican party have earned their keep by rescuing their employers from a failed campaign on substantive issues. In 2004 they rescued the failed presidency of Bush by making the election a moratorium on the phony issue of same-sex marriage. The hapless American public, as they correctly calculated, was, as it still is, addicted to surreal melodramatic soap operas and vacuous gossip.
Of course there is no evidence that anyone other than the republican script writers has sacrificed the life and welfare of a normal teenage girl on the alter of political expediency, since when have facts and reason ever mattered to these "straight talkers"?
The quest is to capture the "moral" high ground with lies, dissembling, and propaganda; and for the present, they have done it once again. In the present narrative no one can question the judgement and wisdom of John "The Hero" McCain, because he was a POW 40 years ago? Likewise, it is "out of bounds" to question Sarah "The Reformer" Palin because she is a mother with a birth defected baby and an unwed and pregnant teen aged daughter. Surely no self-respecting citizen would vote against these two fine characters in the All American Soap Opera, when the only viable alternatives are two candidates with over 50 years of public service, successful and functional families, and who have the silly idea that a presidential election should be about the actual problems and issues confronting the nation and it's people!
Anyone saying that McCain shouldn't have 'outed' Bristol is naive, to say the least. It is almost a certainty that a couple people back in Alaska knew. This means that even if they had deflected the Trig parental mudslinging some other way, it would have come out, probably before the election. Stating it now was the much wiser move as it killed two birds with one stone and allowed them some control at least over the delivery. Many people have commented on the fact that the newspapers are all blaming McCain/Sarah for bringing the spotlight on Bristol by existing and doing what they think they need to. This argument is disingenuous at best. They somehow seem to think that because life is messy, that the GOP(and the GOP alone, I didn't exactly see a plethora of stories from the MSM about how John Edwards should resign from the primaries over his wife's cancer. There were a few, but they were damned quickly dropped. Not to mention their outright ignoring of the whole mistress bit) should make sure their lives are sanitized for public consumption? NONE of the stories I've seen doing the bitching have once mentioned that she A)Knows who the father is. and B) Is eventually going to get married. They also tend to fail to mention that Sarah did something remarkably similar, and here she is, 5 kids and an extremely successful life later none the worse for wear.
McCain has been described by one politico in Arizona (where I lived from 1993 to 2002, and became aware of how much McC is disliked by nearly everyone who's forced to deal with him) as "the Eddie Haskell of politics."
Everyone should leave Bristol alone.
But her mother's judgment, accepting the VP nomination knowing full well this was going to come out and her daughter would be tabloid fodder, is just horrible.
I feel the same way about John Edwards daliances. As a man, do what you please, and I won't judge you. But as a politician, do not sell out your family by running for high office knowing very well the tabloids are going to tear your family apart. It's just cruel, and truly is putting your own ambition over your family's well-being.
So it's not about Bristol, it's about Sarah. Who put her personal ambition above her family's well-being. Disgusting. Horrible mother. Horrible person.
Same goes for Edwards. His poor wife and kids.
bill clinton too...
but palin and edwards are huge hypocrites.
Everyone should leave Bristol alone.
But her mother's judgment, accepting the VP nomination knowing full well this was going to come out and her daughter would be tabloid fodder, is just horrible.
I feel the same way about John Edwards daliances. As a man, do what you please, and I won't judge you. But as a politician, do not sell out your family by running for high office knowing very well the tabloids are going to tear your family apart. It's just cruel, and truly is putting your own ambition over your family's well-being.
So it's not about Bristol, it's about Sarah. Who put her personal ambition above her family's well-being. Disgusting. Horrible mother. Horrible person.
Same goes for Edwards. His poor wife and kids.
bill clinton too...
but palin and edwards are huge hypocrites.
You're all arguing about who said what about whom and who would say what about whom if whomever had a different affiliation. Is 'recursive' the right word for this?
Seeing as you've frequented disappeared up your ample asshole whilst demanding the 'source of your data' endlessly, you can recursive yourself in the ass and mouth AD
Amen to that Megan. I doubt if anyone (responsible) was really going for Bristol--ineptly trying to show up radical social conservative hypocrisy.
nitpicker - The data in the Washington Post article you link is probably good. The logic? Not so much.
"Authoritative studies also show that the chances of an unintended pregnancy while using a condom are not 1 in 6, Santelli wrote, but about 2 percent over the course of a year if condoms are used correctly every time."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702106.html
They use data about unwanted pregnancies "if condoms are used correctly every time", to refute a statement about the real world, not idealized perfection.
Now it might be that the 1 in 6 statement by HHS is wrong, possibly even very wrong, but data about when condoms are used perfectly every time, doesn't refute the point.
Fuck condoms. Try the pill.
I think a parent who preaches abstinence only to their kids is just being irresponsible. Trust, but verify. Preach abstinence, but put your daughter on the pill.
Bleach Blond - The pill is very effective, if used reliably. But then "used reliably" is very important.
Of course the same holds true for other methods of avoiding pregnancy, condoms can be misused (or not used "just this once"), abstinence is 100% (or near 100% depending on exactly how you define it) if its used, but then of course it often isn't "used" even if the original intention was to rely on it.
There isn't a simple total perfect answer.
Tim Fowler writes: "There isn't a simple total perfect answer."
By insisting on abstinence-only education Repiglicans are claiming to have the perfect answer, since they're precluding even a mention of all other answers. That it depends on ignorance, like so many of their prescriptions, is just ducky.
Bleach Blond is quite right - a parent who would only mention abstinence to a child is irresponsible.
Asking Palin how she squares her support for abstinence only programs with her daughter's pregnancy is a very legitimate question since she doesn't seem to have any qualms about inserting her own beliefs into other people's private lives. And the followup question should be, what about those pregnant teens like her daughter who don't have a mother who's a governor and possible VP, what do we do for those women?
Social conservatives can't try and impose their moral standards on the rest of us and then plead privacy when they fail to live up to those standards. It reminds me of the old joke, a liberal is a conservative who needs a lawyer.
MEGAN,
Who exactly is engaging is the "talk" about Bristol Palin that you think is wrong? Any sitting Democratic senators (as McCain was a sitting Republican senator)? Any prominent leftie commentators holding up a picture of a dog and saying it's Bristol (as Limbaugh did about Chelsea)?
Please -- can we get some names and look at what they are saying?
OR are you just making up generalities?
Tim Fowler:
So you concede that condoms, used properly, helps prevent pregnancy and disease, but...what? You don't think programs should actually teach children how to use them and, therefore, increase the chances kid's will use them right?
It's because the world isn't perfect and people screw things up that education is important. This is common sense.
Teaching kids that condoms don't work because you're grossed out by peepees and weewees doesn't help anyone.
nitpicker - Saying that condoms used properly help prevent pregnancy and disease, isn't a concession, I never argued otherwise.
As for programs about teaching children how to use them I haven't said anything about those programs other than echoing what Megan pointed out, that they don't seem to work very well. I didn't argue that the programs where evil, or should be stamped out or anything like that.
My comment was highly specific, it was about the logic of the argument you linked to. It wasn't about taking some partisan side and arguing for the most extreme versions of their ideas. Attacking me for bashing teaching teens how to use condoms is attacking a straw man. If your going to reply to me, please reply to what I actually say, not some easier target that you would prefer to attack.