I've seen a couple of commenters on various blogs defending going after Bristol Palin because if it were one of Obama's daughters, the right would be running with this 24/7. This is not quite right--I'm sure most of the right would be honorably declaring this story off limits, as most of the left has. But would Rush Limbaugh be making obnoxious jokes? Would stupid televangelists be claiming that this was the result of bad family values? Undoubtedly.
If I thought that Rush Limbaugh was the moral compass for our society, I would kill myself.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Unfortunately, Megan, for millions of his listeners, he is (and they vote).
The question is not whether "the right" (by which most people mean "right-wing talk radio") would be talking about it, but in what terms. Trust me when I say that the tone would be entirely different, not meant to reflect back to candidate Obama's policies (as in the case of Palin's anti-sex-ed and pro-life positions) but on some supposed absence of "character."
Country first, of course. But character assassination comes in close behind.
I have been listening to liberals preach for years about their superiority, it is refreshing for them to finally admit they have the same ethics as those they dispise.
Again, you're wrong.
John McCain: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."
Rush Limbaugh, Columnist Molly Ivins reported (Arizona Republic 10/17/93) this incident from Limbaugh’s TV show–”Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?” And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton is 13 years old.
John Derbyshire: "I hate Chelsea Clinton"
WTF is the point of your post? Just to say, NUH UH!!!!!!
No facts, no sources, no new information, not even an argument, just plain ol' refutation.
Hey, rick -- are you going to hate Wayne and Garth while you're at it?
"Puberty has not been kind to Chelsea Clinton..."
If the GOP trots out Bristol and her beau onto the stage tonight, I hope the media has the good sense to turn off their cameras!
R Justin is exactly right.
It's hilarious to read how, now, suddenly, a teenage pregnancy is not so bad, it's something that could happen in any family, and a shotgun wedding is a wonderful thing.
Remember, early in the summer, the story of the high school in, what, Massachusetts, where there were dozens of teenage pregnancies, and a supposed pregnancy pact among these young mothers? On education blogs, I read not a few right-wingers saying that this was the result of coddling pregnant teenagers and teenage moms by allowing them to finish high school. We should SHAME these girls, the commenters proclaimed. Those sluts had terrible neglectful parents.
If that shame is over, good. But I suspect the double standard will return as soon as the election is over. IOKIYAR.
I regret that politics have reached the point where we are left to mock such things as intensely personal as one's relationships with one's children but, as John Derbyshire, Sean Hannity, and John McCain himself show... it's come to that.
Also, doesn't Palin look like Monica Lewinsky? Look at those fat cheeks! Change the hair, lose the glasses, and you've got the exact same "sure, I'll have another baked potato" kinda face.
Remember ladies: A vote for McCain is a vote for Monica Lewinsky.
I'm not seeing ANYONE going after Bristol Palin. I'm seeing them go after her dumbass creationist wackaloon mother, and I hope it continues until she's a broken heap of pain. I'm sick to death of these SuperChristian morons and the very last thing we need is more of them running things.
Palin was picked, in part, because the Repiglicans thought they could run her as SuperMom. Turns out she's not up to that job. Tough shit.
You're obviously entitled to an opinion of "what would happen if..." based on observations and interactions with the GOP political class, but I think you're bending over backwards to assume an unwarranted good faith. I think the key is that today's GOP has apparently no problem embracing increasingly bizarre double standards.
When the Democrats embrace increasingly bizarre double standards, it's because they want to make the world a better place for everyone.
When the Republicans do it, it's just because they want to impose their own twisted morality on the rest of us.
It's the republicans who are denouncing these attacks, after making similarly personal attacks on Chelsea and others who make me sick of republicans.
And it's the democrats claiming these attacks are fair ground, after denouncing the attacks on Chelsea and others, who make me sick of the democrats.
All said and done, the Red Team!!! Blue team!!! Rah rah rah!!!-ness of this race makes me ill. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves.
According to Andrew Sullivan, he and the rest of the press are not responsible for any collateral damage to Bristol resulting from the frenzy.
"The human costs of all this must be pinned to the people responsible. Not the press, who are just doing their job."
He was right in the middle of the fray with headlines like "Bristol Is Pregnant" (emphasis in the original).
Jaybird is right, she does look like Lewinsky... and there is no doubt in my mind that McCain's role for Palin is the same.
"I've seen a couple of commenters on various blogs defending going after Bristol Palin because if it were one of Obama's daughters, the right would be running with this 24/7. This is not quite right--I'm sure most of the right would be honorably declaring this story off limits, as most of the left has.
That's just not correct and I think you know it. Not only does the right have a demonstrable history of being far, far, more willing to associated family members as election talking points (see Clinton, Hillary; Heinz, Teresa; Obama, Michelle), but as mentioned above, McCain has a history of HIMSELF making crude and sexist remarks about a President's daughter.
Is there any evidence that a) there were prominent Repubs who condemned the spousal politics used in each presidential election and b) any people on the mainstream left making inappropriate remarks about Bristol?
And let's not even get into the racial element that would explode.
Sometimes there is NOT a moral equivalence between the parties. It's that simple.
Megan, You're deluding yourself if you think that "most" rightwing nutjobs would ignore the story if Barack had a 17 yr old unwed pregnant teenage daughter.
Remember how they went crazy on Wright? Well it turns out, Palin actually sat in church while her pastor was going off abotu how terrorist attacks are just "god's judgment" against the Jewish people.
And Not a peep from Fox or those who were concerned about Obama's relationship with Wright.
There IS a double standard here. It's pretty obvious. too obvious, in fact, for you to honestly think otherwise.
You dumb fuck - they would be running it night and day if it was Obama's daughter.
are you lying to us, or yourself?
Moron/Fuckwit/Liar/Dipshit
Megan, this post is an example of what can be so frustrating about your blog. It's not as if you are WRONG, but:
(1) Your statement that "I'm sure most of the right would be honorably declaring this story off limits", unless meant ironically (and I doubt that you meant it that way, as it would undercut your point), is remarkably naive.
(2) Your last sentence ignores the fact that, for a large portion of our society, Limbaugh is a moral compass. There is simply no analogous figure on the left. I don't mean that there isn't anyone as nasty - clearly there are such people - but no one who combines his nastiness, popularity, and respectibility among "mainstrain" conservatives.
Look, I tend to think that this is a non-issue, and the family's privacy should be respected, etc., etc. But given the realities of the past few years, it's not realistic to think that this issue wasn't going to come up. On the whole, the reaction of the media and of the Democratic activist base has been remarkably restrained.
Finally, let's have some acknowledgement that a big driver of this story isn't Democratic activists but the marketplace at work - corporate media giving the people what they want, in pursuit of viewers/readers, and, ultimately, advertising dollars. I don't think that there is anything we can or should do about that, but let's at least assign responsibility where it belongs.
But seriously, just who is "going after" Bristol? Reporting the fact that she's pregnant seems legitimately within the bounds of current standards regarding the sacrifice of privacy imposed on politicians (whether's that's a good thing or not is a different discussion). And reflecting on how that fact highlights some of her mother's positions regarding sex education and abortion also seems legitimate.
I just haven't seen anybody (outside of fringe commenters on other people's blogs) personally attacking or disparaging Bristol herself. It's unfortunate that she's been thrust into the limelight, but that goes with the territory: virtually all politicians who decide to enter the national arena sit down with their families beforehand for a long discussion of the inevitable impact such a decision will have.
Personal, insulting attacks (such as those hurled at Chelsea) should clearly be out of bounds, but anything that family members do that somehow qualifies as "newsworthy" will get reported and commented on. For better or for worse, that's the world we live in.
Shouldn't the title of this piece be "Imaginary Turnabout Fair Play?"
I mean, it's one thing to say "They did it, so we'll do it too." It's an entirely different thing to say "I bet they would do it, so we'll do it too."
I can't remember ever using that line back when I was squabbling with my little brother.
Unfortunately, many of your "conservative" readers DO think Rush is the moral compass of America.
No public democrat is saying anything bad about Bristol, nor would most public elected GOP officials say much about Obama's kids, but, on one case, you got a few people on the internets writing things, and on the other, you'd have insanely popular TV and radio shows like Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, who are GOOD friends of those GOP officials happily pumping filth over publicly owned airwaves, 24/7, and making good $$$ in the process. They are all already on record saying very horrible things about Jamie Lynn Spears for doing the exact same thing Bristol did, but suddenly, Bristol is off-limits?! And if it had been Obama's daughter, the horrible things they said about Jamie Lynn would be nothing compared to all of the crap they'd throw at Obama.
It would be, "see? Black culture makes HORRIBLE parents!" There would be statistics about unwed black mothers and absentee black fathers, black crime, welfare, etc. runnign 24 hours a day on FOX News, and they'd probably throw in some violent gangsta scenes from the Wire for good measure.
And remember Meghan, you share a common fanbase with those people, and you don't seem to have any issue with that.
Actually, I've seen a good number of comments judges Mrs. Palin on her judgement regarding the "outing" of her daughter and referencing her daughter in regards to sex education policy. Like it or not, both of those violate the concept of respecting privacy.
If I thought that Rush Limbaugh was the moral compass for our society, I would kill myself.
That's a bit extreme; moving far, far away would probably suffice.
Unfortunately, lots of "movement conservatives" (e.g. the National Review, which used to have some standards) are willing to say just that.
"[A] couple of commenters on various blogs..."!?! Give me a break.
The big-time Dems are not going after Bristol Palin - they have subcontracted this job to the media, who is gleefully airing every crazy-arse rumor and using their wall-to-wall coverage of Bristol's womb to blot out any reporting of the convention or any substantive reporting on Palin herself. Rush is a loud-mouth opinionator - I don't even know if you could call him an opinion-journalist - and I like the guy. The people who host the big news shows on the networks and CNN are not supposed to be opinionators - they are supposed to report the news. If they air a story, it out to have at least some fact checking behind it. In citing Rush, the various commentators above and elsewhere have essentially admitted that the MSM is nothing but a collection of left-wing opinionators - we on the right have known this for years (there are/were a few honorable exceptions like Russert), but it is nice to hear the left finally admit it.
And those jokes about Chelsea were wrong and should not have been made. On the other hand, the antics of the Bush twins were followed very closely by the MSM, but there was never any reporting on what Chelsea and the Gore girls got up to in college.
Yes, "the right" would respectfully decline to comment on the black, unwed, teenage daughter of the black presidential nominee. That's just how they roll.
I'm not so sure the televangelists would be claiming it was the result of bad family values. There are dumb people everywhere, but quite often the evangelists are more morally sophisticated than the press gives them credit for.
It's not as if teenage pregnancy is unheard of in evangelical circles. Since they believe in original sin, moral failings are more or less a given, and they quite often have to deal with the results of drugs, sex, and, uh, rock-n-roll.
If Andrew weren't such a weenie, he might have comments on his blog and the discussion wouldn't have to spill over here. I'm glad you're getting paid to do this now, but seriously Megan... back in the day, did Mindles ever post anything that you had to clean up after? As a long time reader way back to when you started posting there after 9/11, this weekend sure makes it look like that's exactly what The Atlantic is paying you for.
Forget Rush Limbaugh. Do people really think Bill Bennett, David Brooks, and other respectable conservatives on the mainstream news networks would be saying "this is so cool" instead of pointing out, more in sorrow than in anger, how the Obamas are poor role models?
Forget Limbaugh. It's about the Bill Bennett class.
It's a sign of petty elitism to slam Rush Limbaugh. He's actually one of the most civil voices in talk radio. When he mocks someone, it's done with humor and generosity, not with the viciousness and bitterness common in the lefty blogosphere. Even targets of his humor, such as Al Sharpton, respect him for that.
You guys are also missing a big difference between an Alaskan teen getting pregnant and having a shotgun wedding versus say, a teen in D.C. getting pregnant: Bristol's kid wouldn't be a burden on society, since her 18 year old father can find high-paying work there in the energy or fishing industries. Heck, the kid could even grow up to be a governor of that state. A teen pregnancy in D.C. would likely lead to an entirely different outcome.
Rush Limbaugh may not be the moral compass of the United States as a whole, but it's certainly true that he's the moral bellweather for at least a majority of the Republican party. At least 51%, if not more.
Not to say that you should kill yourself...maybe Limbaugh...could we be that lucky?
It's about the Bill Bennett class.
James Taranto spoke with Bill Bennett, and his judgment of the Palin pregnancy was apparently pretty harsh.
So you can't claim that he is being inconsistent with his hypothetical-alternate-universe counterpart.
Says the jobless motherfucker, apparently without irony.
Fred,
Nap time is over. Time to complain how the black man is stealing your work.
Megan I truly think you are being naive here. If the McCain campaign thought they could capitalise on it they would. It might be indirect; the more direct stuff may not have their fingerprints, but it is fair to say they wouldn't hold back to protect Bristol.
I don't get what the big deal is. No one in the universe today could imagine there wouldn't be a media storm over Bristol Palin's pregnancy. People are either (a) bringing their own morality into play when discussing it--they think it is a scarlet letter so they think reporting on it is some huge invasion of privacy; or (b) playing politics. What it weird to me about the whole thing is that Bristol and Levi are getting married. This seems like a shotgun wedding. On the other hand, the young couple gets instant and immense media attention. This might be bad for Sarah Palin and John McCain but it certainly isn't bad for Bristol and Levi. It's like they just won the lottery.
Just for the record, the sum total of Rush Limbuagh's statements that I've actually heard amounted to something about an 'excursion into radio excellence'. They make fun of it on Howard Stern.
I'm not a Conservative, but I played one in the imagination of many commenters at the old site.
I keep wondering if he's as bad as he's made out to be, but then I remember that I don't care. There's a difference between an entertainment product (like Limbaugh and Molly Ivins ) and a "moral compass".
2 thoughts:
If the Republicans make Bristol Palin's keeping the baby a selling point by say celebrating her decision to keep the baby (good for her) and use it as a strength of her upbringing and a sign of her parent's beliefs, then she should be fair game for any critics as well. You can't have it both ways. If you want the press to stop with it, don't raise it.
Second, if the press had access to Gov. Palin herself and could you know ask her questions, then maybe the free for all that is passing for news coverage wouldn't be as severe. When you don't have access to the source material, digging into other avenues and conjecture will soon follow.
If you want the press to stop with it, don't raise it.
They didn't raise it; they are responding to it. Big diff.
When you don't have access to the source material, digging into other avenues and conjecture will soon follow.
There's a whole universe of reporting out there that is more legitimate than the state of Bristol's uterus, all of it being neglected.
This is just shameful, and very likely generating blowback.
Rush Limbaugh (and his imitators) and "stupid televangelists" basically are "most of the Right," Limbaugh isn't some obscure fringe figure. I don't know what would happen if Palin was a Democrat but I think the Right would be less shy about making it an issue than the left has been.
James Taranto spoke with Bill Bennett, and his judgment of the Palin pregnancy was apparently pretty harsh.
We don't need to go on Taranto's statements, because Bennett has been on CNN all week talking neutrally about Palin and about how well-received she's been by conservatives who love her pro-life story. In particular, he praised Obama for his neutrality and un-Bennettian refusal to condemn Bristol for faltering in the quest for virtue. If he's said anything negative in private, he hasn't allowed it to get in the way of his support for the ticket, and as a noted authority on virture and a public scold he wouldn't have had the same conflict if the other ticket were facing this problem.