This poll isn’t about Sarah Palin and her daughter’s pregnancy. Not directly. The Republicans and Obama rightly agree that her children (and of all politicians) should be off limits. How candidates raised them is not as it goes to what kind of person they are, their beliefs, and so on.
No, this poll is about the more general question of what should be private and personal relative to government intervention. As the poster on reddit who’s item prompted my post put it: “I agree with the Repubs, daughter’s pregnancy is private, just as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and recreational drug use are private matters that should be beyond government and politics.”
Do you agree with that sentiment? Given the Republicans are (or used to be) about freedom from government intrusion, should the government not police drug use (other than when it does affect others such as DUI), try to legislate abortion, who marries whom, end of life decisions by lucid, rational individuals and other private, personal and family matters? Should the government be involved in what a person does to and with themselves and does consensually to and with others? Should the individual have true freedom from government intrusion in the privacy of their home or should the government, often based on the religious tenants of the legislators, be able to regulate how one lives or dies?
Sound off!
I know I also speak for the other ex-Republicans in my family. That used to be a conservative party, supporting issues of conservation and keeping your nose out of peoples’ lives. Not any more.
If I was discussing this in an academic setting with folks with a bona fide interest in political history, I would characterize the neocons who own the party as proto-fascist – and most would understand what I mean.
“Nutball” will probably have to do.
Is it really news that social conservatives are hypocrites? I left the Republican party because of these people. I just could no longer stand to be associated with them.
Simply put, I don’t need anybody telling me what I can do to myself. However…
This is a case where, in my opinion, a little from each camp needs to be considered. For instance, should we allow an alcoholic to just drown themselves away? Is that a government problem? A problem for society to deal with? In a culture where neighbors may live next to each other for a decade or more and not even know each other’s names, we clearly can’t leave it up to “the village” to help. Can we?
I firmly believe the government has no place in my home. I don’t need decency laws, “blue” laws, censorship of my television, auditing of my web history, inventory of my cabinets and drawers for alcohol, drugs, guns, or whatever happens to be my vice. As long as I don’t harm someone else (which we already have laws against), what I do to myself should be out of the realm of legislature.
But, again, what about those that can’t help themselves? What about an infant born to a crack head? Who protects the baby from the parent? Again, we have laws against child abuse…but do we have to let it get that far? Do we need to wait until the damage is done? How does that play into abortion laws? If you can protect a fetus from drugs and alcohol for fear of killing it, why is abortion legal?
These debates are typically trumped by religious ideologies. I find that repulsive, since we can clearly have a rational debate about them without invoking some invisible force that begs us not to about babies, but smites at will, and asks believers to kill sinners. Like an alcoholic in an AA meeting giving responsibility for behavior and personal strength to “god”, it’s just an easy way to shirk responsibility for difficult situations.
Personally, that goes farther than I’d advocate, but I could be content, I think, in such a society.
I agree with you demand that government stay out of our lives on all points but abortion. And the only reason for this is the insane insistence that a “fetus” can have its brains bashed in if one little toe remains in the vagina. No matter it is living, breathing, full term child. Give that insane “reproductive right” up and I am with you.
I think that in most cases private matters (especially the children of politicians) should be left out of politics, and this really should go both ways: politicians shouldn’t pose with their children or leverage them as assets to show how ‘good’ they are, and the media should let private things remain private. However, there an exceptions. If a strong anti-abortionists was found to have had an abortion themselves (or encouraged others to do so) then that would be worthy of print. Similarly, politicians that preach family values who then go around fucking everything that moves should also be exposed as frauds.
I can see a couple of ways of enforcing. With this who Palin, for example, more people should write letters and express views simply saying “who cares” or that it is none of the public’s business. I also think that it’d be fair limitation on the freedom of press to say that if the press print private matters they could have to prove, in a court of law, that it was in the public’s interest that the information was made public.
My two cents are free… 😀
What year is it? I remember a few years ago smearing people in any way was OK. Now we want folks to keep their minds away from hearsay as it has no place in politics. The candidates can keep from
hurting each other but the press and blogs will do what they want for business and money.
I have spent the night watching the news and it was a balance of pregnancy, hurricanes and Senator Steven’s 527 group.
I watched it and an old movie I had seen before.
I do not want you to examine my history so I do not run for the senate.
Your label is a bit off. Social Services intervening in how parents raise children is a dem legislative initiative. Change this is you want cred.
Yes the government should stay out of our most private business. They won’t, of course, but our private lives are none of our government’s or our employer’s business.
They say you can’t legislate morality but the immoral bastards we elect won’t quit trying. I guess they think their legislation is a substitute for their lack of character and morals.
Also, we have the kind of government we deserve because we are in the drivers seat and we still let (help) our own government enslave us.
Character and moral values have been directly related to the campaign of John McCain. Its not about Palin’s daughter being pregnant. But rather it questions the effectiveness of Palin’s support for teaching abstinence only in schools. It is obvious with her own daughter that it was not followed. I don’t like to see her daughter used as a example but it is what it is. I personally think Mrs. Palin made bad choices in how she handled her pregnancy. It appears from reading many blogs from Doctors that her flight from Dallas to Alaska was a extremely bad decision and could have resulted in a bad outcome for herself and her baby. I myself still have questions about the child’s birth and I have yet to see where the Palin’s have addressed the questions. As long as Palin’s creditability is in question I think its fair for the media to report and investigate it.
Someone must set the record straight and it appears that the McCain camp is trying to slide it under the rug! If you have secrets you do not want disclosed then my advice is don’t go into politics.
8,
please leave asinine labels outside. Let’s talk about actual policies and actions. Can you?
To quote the original from Reddit:
“I agree with the Repubs, daughter’s pregnancy is private, just as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and recreational drug use are private matters that should be beyond government and politics.”
Yes, no, yes, yes, maybe.
Daughter is a teenager able to make decisions on her own (as shown by the choice to have sex…I’m sure her parents didn’t agree with that one). It is not a reflection on the parent and should be outside of politics.
Abortion is more touchy. At what point does the cluster of cells become a human? It’s not a magical event that takes place after leaving the uterus. It also isn’t a magical event that takes place at implantation (or fertilization). The CNS develops to a point of functioning with individual brain waves and REM sleep in or around the 6-8 weeks post conception stage. That’s a pretty good line IMHO.
Gay Marriage, None of the governments business. The government shouldn’t be in the marriage game in the first place. If we had a consumption based tax system, there would be no breaks for marriage so the government could leave the marriage license business.
Euthanasia? Not the governments business, if it is chosen by the patient. Otherwise, it should be up to the responsible party and a panel of doctors.
Recreational Drug Use? If you can stay out of a car, I don’t care. Another caveat to that is in regards to your ability to handle your own bills/food/medical care. If the government (read my taxes) have to pay for your expenses, you can quit smoking pot and go get a damn job. Otherwise, toke up, I don’t care.
So, most Americans are fine (complacent) with the government spying into the their personal lives through wire tapping and such, but the personal lives of politicians are off limits? I don’t get it…
This stuff has nothing to do with the real issues and probably should be ignored for that reason alone.
Palin was basically brought in as a fund-raiser. The Republican evangelical “base” wasn’t coming through for McCain, financially, and would have gone ballistic had McCain named Lieberman (his real choice). Palin’s family and personal issues may seriously compromise her value to the party in this regard; to that extent, maybe it’s newsworthy. If it looks like she can’t deliver the goods – big donations from the megachurch demographic – she might be dropped.
I have no big argument with anyone who wears their religion on their sleeves or has children having children but, I think this shows how poor McCains ability to make decisions really is. Especially since he knew about this and chose her anyway.
Double faced religious traitors.
You call abortion a choice I call it killing a human being. when a sperm and an egg combine it is a human genetically, you can do a dna test and it tests as a human not a horse or a pig but a human, so it is not a choice the choice was to use birth control or not. Unwanted pregnancy is a consequence of a bad choice and I don’t believe the unborn baby should have to pay for the poor judgment of the parents
as to govt out of our lives abortion is a states right issue not a federal one and especially not one that should be decided from the bench. No where in our federal constitution does it take on reproductive rights, so there fore those are state issues and if your state legalizes abortion and you disagree fight to change the law or move to another state don’t let some judge be they conservative or liberal make this desicision
I also feel the same about drug laws if one state wants free pot let em have it as long as the people want it not a judge forcing it
marriage is more complicated though, because states must recognize marriages from other states so even if my state votes gay marriage illegal it will still have to respect a marriage from a state that deems it legal, so on this issue the federal govt needs to intervene and have a law passed not a judgment but a law to decide this issue
Questions like these are not asked anywhere near enough in my mind. They bring to light the inherent flaws in the two party system that exists in this country. As someone who typically votes Republican, I find myself torn on many issues. I am very fiscally conservative. I believe that we should lower taxes across the board and cut spending in all levels of government. My feeling is that if we raise taxes on the wealthy (mainly corporations), that will, in turn, hurt those lower on the tax brackets. But I don’t think that “trickle down” economics works either. Just because we give the wealthy a break doesn’t mean that the poor will see that as well. The people at the top will ensure they get their share. They’ll either hurt the little people more or less, not help. But how do we wrestle the control from these people? We can’t regulate it out as (again in my belief) it would kill our economy, but we can’t let the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else.
But for being a fiscal conservative, I’m also a social liberal. Which is where I really get torn. I believe that the health care system is broken. My wife is a social worker with clients that are mainly mentally ill, and I have seen how the system has failed most of her clients. But I haven’t seen anyone put forward a system that will make it better. Yes, we could give care to everyone, but at what standard of care?
I have two children and could not even fathom the idea of having aborted one of them. Or any child in the future for that matter. I think its a horrible thing and view it with a matter of disgust. That being said, just because I feel that way doesn’t mean that anyone else should be subjected to my beliefs on such an entirely personal matter. But all emotions aside on the subject, there is one indisputable fact about abortion: it happens and will continue to happen, legally or illegally. If, god forbid, my daughter should get pregnant one day, and for some reason be afraid to discuss it with us, I would much rather she have the legal right to go to Planned Parenthood and have an abortion there, than to try to impale herself with a coat hanger and potentially kill herself. If we outlaw abortion, people will still do it. Shouldn’t it be done in a safe manner?
The same goes with drugs. Our nation has CREATED a criminal world around drugs that should never have existed. It is a drain on our economy and on tax revenue that should be the complete opposite. Legalize, regulate, and turn drug war into a legitimate industry, and now it helps our economy and generates tax revenue.
Gay marriage is not even worth the breath inhaled that all the right-wing nutters take so deeply before fuming about it. It doesn’t hurt anyone. Maybe, MAYBE, you could argue about adoption, and the effect on children, but marriage is NOT adoption. Shut up already and move on.
While it is true that the words “Separation of church and State” are not to be found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights, but this is in the First Amendment of the Constitution “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Free exercise thereof also says to me “freedom to abstain from.” If we let our legislators use religion to make laws, then we are letting them infringe on the first amendment. One can be guided by good faith and morals without ramming their particular faith down someones throat. Laws should be made based on fact alone, not faith.
All this brings me to the point that our two party system is broken. I look at most Democratic candidates on the economy and military (I refuse to use the term “national security” as it brings to mind the dept of Homeland Security and Patriot act etc, which I think are ridiculous) and roll my eyes. I look at most Republican candidates on social issues and get the same reaction. Then I look at independent candidates and think, “Why do you all have to be whack jobs?” My political tendencies would probably be considered libertarian by many. When I worked at a bank, I had a customer who would come in regularly that was a member of the local libertarian party. I had half a mind calling the guys in white coats when he would start talking about the party meetings.
It is a crying shame that our elections, at least in the time that I have been voting, come down to the lesser of two evils.
BTW, I wish people would pay more attention to their congressional elections and their state and local level elections. So many of the sheeple out there on both sides of the coin seem to think the president can do everything and have no concept of who is really calling the shots. When is the last time that most republicans researched which judges routinely throw out cases against illegal immigrants? When was the last time most democrats paid attention to whether or not their county attorney was protecting civil liberties or not?
Uncle Dave,
“How candidates raised them is not as it goes to what kind of person they are, their beliefs, and so on.”
You’re kidding right? How a parent raises their kid is not indicative of their own beliefs? Nor does it demonstrate what kind of person they are? Do you just drool and then type it out?
How a parent raises a kid is very much demonstrative of how they think, what kind of person they are and the beliefs they hold dear. That a kid at times ignores parental guidance, advice and direction, making their own mistakes in life does indeed rest upon the shoulders of the kid and shouldn’t be used as political fodder in a society that thinks of “the children”. The recent democrat blog sphere using a child to berate and bemoan a vp candidate just shows the two faced true colors of said liberal thinkers. Your party of elite whiners should be proud of themselves over this one, I can see where Billy and Hillary get their flip-flop-make-it-up-pop-politics, it seems to work for the party body at large.
You guys are sad. And asses. Sad-asses.
Do conservatives and most Republicans agree with the sentiment of staying out of people’s personal life? Yes. However, the devil is in the details (or so they say ;->).
With respect to recreational drugs, in general, I bet that most conservatives agree that people should be permitted to do what they wish to themselves to a point. What about massively addictive drugs? What about people that wreak their family and friends financially to get drugs? The DUI argument is even more challenging when you look at it with respect to drugs for which there is no test that would legally determine that someone was impaired while driving. In fact, IMO, this is the primary reason marijuana is illegal.
Abortion is even trickier. Abortion comes down to a single issue: when exactly does life begin? Everyone agrees that aborting the pregnancy is fine before life begins and unacceptable after life begins. If the government permits someone to abort a child after you believe it to be a life, then the argument is that you are sanctioning personal murder. Privacy does not go so far as to permit murder behind closed doors.
Marriage again is a two part issue. It is *already* the case that any two (or more) people can conduct some ceremony and consider themselves married. No level of tyranny can prevent that. However, that does not mean that the state must recognize that marriage and confer upon it benefits. THAT is the core issue with marriage. On this one, most conservatives have some ridiculous notion that the term “marriage” has magical meaning.
End of life decisions IMO should be entirely private. It is ridiculous that suicide is illegal. That you chose to live or die is the ultimate private choice that each person should be permitted to make at any time including the end of their life. I think it is difficult for most people to objectively analyze that situation so I would bet that the answers range across political boundaries.
#11 “please leave asinine labels outside.”
I didn’t bring in the labels. Uncle Dave did. Did you read the blog item?
#12 “there would be no breaks for marriage so the government could leave the marriage license business”
Breaks? Umm, no. Two wage earners are PENALIZED tax wise for being married.
The only personal information that should be in the public eye are a politician’s business information, their stock portfolio, their tax records and any thing in their personal life that contradicts their platform.
Of course all this should be PRIVATE matters.
The issue is that the GOP wants to legislate Morality. Hence, they bring these issues to the forefront of politics.
Basically, a band of hypocrites.
#12 – Daughter is a teenager able to make decisions on her own (as shown by the choice to have sex…I’m sure her parents didn’t agree with that one). It is not a reflection on the parent and should be outside of politics.
If a 17 year old broke into your car and stole your satellite radio, most people would be bitching about bad parenting and how the parents need to be held responsible.
Sarah Palin is a member (and suddenly a very prominent one) of the party that likes to claim moral superiority on family values and personal responsibility…
And she is a staunch anti-choice crusader and an advocate of abstinence only education…
This absolutely is a reflection on her as a parent and political fair game. You don’t get to be the right wing candidate from the party of Ken Starr and then suddenly say that private lives are off limits.
Let’s just pause for a microsecond and consider what would have happened if it had been the *Democratic* VP candidate’s daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock. We all know what would have happened — no pious wringing of the hands by the corporate and right-wing media on the privacy of candidates… they would have gone for it with knives out. 24/7 about how immoral the Democrats are.
Come on people… get real.
If you weed out the Evangelics off the Republican Party you might get it back to what it once was.
Otherwise you’re going to get stuck with a party who gives priority to witch hunts towards sex and people with skin darker than theirs.
>> “I agree with the Repubs, daughter’s pregnancy is private, just as abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, and recreational drug use are private matters that should be beyond government and politics.”
I agree with the social conservatives and religious right that none of this stuff is strictly personal — it all costs society. (Well, not gay marriage. That actually HELPS society)
A “recreational” meth user, for example, is a drain on society.
Where I disagree is how society addresses these issues. I strongly disagree with a criminalizing approach that puts more and more people in prison.
I’m for drug addiction programs. And birth control and sex education.
I part with the progressives on euthanasia: I’m against the government killing chronically sick people but I’m not for criminalizing suicide, either.
Why are Larry “Wide Stance” Craig and David “Vitter the Shitter” Vitter still in office, while Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace? Simple: Two different standards of behavior for Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are allowed to get away with sleazier behavior than Democrats, all the while protesting that THEY are more upstanding and moral.
It’s just amazing.
>> Angel H. Wong said,
>> If you weed out the Evangelics off the Republican Party you might get it back to what it once was.
If you “weed” Evangelicals out of the GOP, you really don’t have any party left. At least not enough to win elections.
I know the GOP worships Reagan, but you have him to thanks for this religious extremism you’re stuck in.
We’re definitely at condition yellow and the Repubs are pushing hard for orange. Just as stupid people never realize just how dumb they are (case in point: Dumbya), Republicans just don’t realize how fascist they are becoming. They rail against lawyers and Democrats and excuse the criminals, gays, and other practices (like out-of-wedlock children) in their own party. I think their selfishness blinds them. Some have bought the line the “God wants them to be rich” but most of them simply gave up independent thinking long ago (sooo much easier on that tired ‘ol brain). It is a well established fact that people with low IQs and little education tend to be Republicans. Makes sense to me….
Now put on your jack boots and get in step!