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!
Generally I agree that candidates children (as in young Chelsa Clinton) should be off limits. There is however the hyprocacy exception to the rule.
In the case of Edwards he made his family and his marriage a political issue. He put down Bill Clinton for his behavior. So Edwards having an affair – it’s news.
Barney Frank with a male prostitute – not news.
Ted Hagart with a male prostitute – NEWS.
So is Sarah Palin news? YES! Because her and her Christian conservatives are pushing abstanance only education, she against abortion, and her family represents the results of the issues she stands for. So if her daughter Bristol is pregnant (And I don’t think she is) and they do a shot gun wedding making the 16 year old father marry her – that’s news. Is Cheney going to hold the shotgun?
I think the real news is that Bristol was pregnant and gave birth to Trig and that’s the real story. I think this “she’s pregnant now” is a lie.
Bet she has a “miscarrage” in the near future to cover that she’s not currently pregnant.
“When Obama was 17 he was doing drugs, getting drunk, and skipping school. He said so himself in his book.
I’d say that trumps getting knocked up in the bad decisions column.”
Actually, no. He didn’t bring another person into the world when he was ill-equipped to do so, thus placing that person’s entire life at risk from being raised poorly by unprepared parents.
Skipping school the equivalent of getting pregnant? Strange standards you got there pal…
#33
“Barney Frank with a male prostitute – not news.
Ted Hagart with a male prostitute – NEWS.
So by your reasoning:
Dem legislators who send their kids to private schools and block poor African Americans in DC from same opportunity = news?
The Jerusalem Post reported yeterday that the Dutch have extracted their people from Iran because of what they believe to be an immenent threat of attack from the US on Iran.
That’s important.
This stuff is just crap.
It makes me sad that we are so easily distracted from what is important.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1220186494776&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
No I don’t agree with the Reddit proposition at all.
The events within a family have a decisive bearing on the behavior, motivations, decisions and actions of ANY political figure given powers of public trust.
If the fact that the public and congress goes ballistic when it hears about Bill Clinton’s blow job (as an extreme example) is the reason concepts of public figure personal privacy is being touted, then it is up to the public to learn how to deal with it. There are much more massive issues afoot here.
(Has it ever occurred to anyone that Monica Lewinski’s lack of dry cleaning promptness got us into Iraq?)
If you don’t wish to subject your family to the eventual prying of a free press in the name of those who are about to be subject to your mantle of governance, then choose a private vocation that doesn’t involve passing edicts that affect people widely.
The private lives of people who are NOT wielding power should be sacrosanct, but power wranglers need to be scrutinized from every possible angle.
What if it were to come out that some high school kid in the Juneau circle had blackmailed Governor Palin into pretending to be the mom of Trig? How would you have ever uncovered that unless snooping around the whole set of kids and associates were regarded as fair game?
Governor Palin has already shown Red Queen tendencies. I think it is only fair to dig into every last dust particle of her past, including the expanding circle of her influences and influencers.
And the same goes for McCain, Obama, Biden, Clinton and even Huckabee. The REASON this flap has been bloated to its current proportions is that the data it is based on was COVERED UP.
The success of that coverup was about 0.001%, but they tried to gloss over it just the same, and there is a growing stream of mighty peculiar circumstances coming to light. The chances that all of them lead nowhere is about a similar 0.001%.
Quacks like a duck. Poops like a duck. Why, my goodness, what could this oleaginous substance on my doorstep be? And who had the motive, means and opportunity to leave it here?
How Parents Handle Children
Yes, the government should have limited power for cases shen parents cease being parents.
Abortion
Yes, the government should set the standard of what life is and what death is. Abortionists should be regulated as any medical professional would.
Marriage
Yes, the government should make marriage legal to all citizens 18 years or older. No race, age or gender should be excluded.
Euthanasia
Yes, the government should set clear standards through the medical/healthcare system when and how euthanasia should be allowed and conducted.
Recreational Drugs
Yes, the government should have a policy to educate children to never become adults that use drugs without being ill. They should also have an enforce penalties for drugs being used without illness. This includes, alcohol, nicotine, presciption & illicit drugs. Drugs are medicine, not a toy.
Cursor_
[Duplicate comment deleted. – ed.]
This question is best answered by the comparison to the seat-belt laws and laws that you need lights on your car while driving at night.
As long as your actions literally can’t hurt others it shouldn’t be Govt. job to impose, control and punish. If one doesn’t wear seat-belt there is no way anyone else can be hurt by this action. If one does drive without lights at night, chances are great that innocent others would be affected, injured or even killed. So, seat-belt laws: Govt. intrusion; lights at night: proper Govt. action.
Now, far left would love to extend this to the cases where it doesn’t apply. So I’ll go through Dvorak list:
-should the government not police drug use (other than when it does affect others such as DUI): the drug user is certifiably not capable of normal reasoning, hence injury to others is likely just from the fact that the person is under influence. “Policeable”,…
-try to legislate abortion: approach from the scientific and humanitarian angle. Scientifically we have many prematurely born infants who survive after 5.5 months in womb. Hence, abortion after that moment in time can’t be called anything but murder and should be regulated humanely: if mother doesn’t want baby after that stage, allow her to cut any legal and personal connections to the infant and also make effort to extract infant alive and give full medical attention for it to survive. Move this time frame further as science advances, in the end changing the meaning of the abortion to the level of adoption… Protect both lives, policeable.
-who marries whom: Who can get hurt? No one. Keep Govt. out of it.
-end of life decisions by lucid, rational individuals: as long as they do it themselves. It’s called suicide and no one is prosecuted for that anyway. If you add “assisted suicide”, chances for the abuse not only exist but are great. Policeable.
Good post #12, I’d like to add.
When I read the focal comment in the post about the 6 issues my common sense alert o meter pegs. I think that on the face of this question, yes these are all private matters but there are some differences.
There are two ways to see each one of these issues. You could have each one ‘somewhere in the persons family’. That should be private. The only real reason to make it an issue is to imply character problems on the person (for things done by someone else?).
On the other hand, if the person is DOING any of these then that’s not necessarily private. If the person is pregnant and the father isn’t the husband or if the person is using recreational drugs, if the person is in a gay marriage, if the person commits euthanasia (ok, maybe an exception), if the person has an abortion.
And even then, I’m interested in what they have to say about such things. Maybe this was far in their past and they have lessons to teach others about these things. Perhaps they have learned and these things aren’t part of their character any longer so it’s not relevant.
My assumption here is for someone running for high office. I guess my vote is private if these behaviors are from someone else but not private is the person is actively engaging in these behaviors.
One last thing, just because something is not private doesn’t mean they should be subjected to the unethical invasions the media thinks is it’s prerogative. What are you doing and what do you say about it is all that’s necessary, how does following all of a persons friends help this?
#41 – Sounds reasonable.
# 18 bodiddlie said,
“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.
……..”
I am in the unusual position (for me, that is) of having to say, I agree with everything you said.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
“So is Sarah Palin news? YES! Because her and her Christian conservatives are pushing abstanance only education, … drivel … drivel .. drivel”
Wrong. And here is why, what you are claiming is that since her daughter is an idiot, that its obviously her fault. That makes no sense.
My mother taught many of the same beliefs that that Sarah Palin teaches her kids. I am the oldest, turned out fine went to collage, didn’t get anyone pregnant. My brother after me however, got 2 girls pregnant, went to jail for drugs, and never graduated, and managed this before he even turned 18. My other two sisters, and my other brother turned out fine as well. Does this mean that my mother’s teaching were wrong, or that she is somehow unqualified to be a mother now? No, it means my brother was an idiot, who did stupid things. Either because he wanted to look cool for his friends, or he was just greedy.
So this is indeed a private matter, if Palin had encouraged her daughter to have an abortion, then that would have been newsworthy since it would have been hypocritical of her.
The daughter is not the issue, nor should she be. Unfortunately, her mother has chosen to use her to forward her political career.
The mother’s hypocrisy and deception are the true issues here. She would deny other mothers and daughters the option of making the choice which is best for their family in similar circumstances, and that is what makes this an appropriate subject for public scrutiny and debate. And worse, by denying access to appropriate sex education and contraception, she would condemn many more young women to unwanted pregnancies.
Claiming a right to privacy for her family is offensive when she would not honor the privacy of mine.
#46 “Unfortunately, her mother has chosen to use her to forward her political career. ”
Really? When did that happen?
#28 – A “recreational” meth user????
Huh?
When she locked the kid in the house for 5 months or however long it was; when she claimed the girl’s baby as her own; when she required this girl to carry the infant to hide her pregnancy, and whatever deceptive actions she has required of Bristol to keep her career on track.
The main problem with recreational drug use is overuse or improper handling.
When that happens it harms everyone.
To have two glasses of wine a DAY would be fine and have benefical effect. (So too would be just plain grape juice)
But when it becomes drunkeness, it becomes a problem to everyone.
Cursor_
During the election, I think it’s all fair game. But what you publish in your paper/blog/website or air on the radio or television goes 100% toward your brand image.
For instance the Palin pregnancy stuff. If you have pics of the boy who got the VP’s daughter pregnant on the front page of your site(HuffingtonPost) then your brand is scum and your up there with National Enquirer.
If your writing an editorial about how the pregnancy ties in with her views on abortion, and how that might affect your vote, then you have a little more political cred.
If you ignore pregnant teen, Biden’s racist/sexist remarks, and the rest of the 3 ring circus, and you focus on the differences between McCAIN AND OBAMA and their policies as leader of the FREE WORLD, then your site/blog/paper/newscast has integrity and is actually worth reading/watching/listening to.
But it’s stupid to say that ANYTHING is off limits. The writers should just have integrity and common sense to not report on certain things, unless they want to dumb down their own image. Seriously I’m not changing my vote because of the pregnancy, I’m changing the channel/web address on your lame news.
The writers should just have integrity and common sense to not report on certain things
In today’s media? That’s asking a lot.
I agree that it is private and none of the government’s business.
In fact, American Government needs to be down-sized, just like most super-sized Americans. It is time to start withholding a portion of Federal taxes in proportion to the amount of illegal activity carried out by current government representatives. I think a quick measurement will probably determine that this proportion is beyond 50% that should no longer be funded.
After attrition shrinks the size of government to a smaller size (20% of its current size? 10%?) we can once again revisit current priorities versus what can actually get done by the representative body at its new size and configuration.
No more assistants to the assistants to the assistants to the assistants to the assistants to the representatives. If the representatives can not get it done by themselves and a VERY immediate staff (one or two?) then it will not get done, further enforcing a reassessment of values and priorities.
And of course we have to get rid of all special interest groups, no exceptions.
We have the technology to create a truly representative government (open source groups as a model). Let’s cut out all of the middle people and get back to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
mr
With a name like raintrees…I probably disagree with you on every topic.
Every topic except this one, I’m with you here.
In general, yes the government should stay the Eff out of peoples lives. This poll doesn’t cover other important issues though. The government also should stay the Eff out of trying to regulate what we drive, how big our house(s) are, how far we commute. These types of things are also personal choices and those who would pry into them need to die and get out of the way of the rest of us who would like to practice freedom.
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?
I’m not that young, but this was not in my lifetime. Is anyone old enough to actually remember the time when repugnicans did not intrude into one’s private life? Which was the last such administration?
Certainly, we need a more socially liberal society. We’re currently more likely to get it from the democraps than the repugnicans. However, neither party represents that which they historically did.
#8 Paddy-O,
I have to agree that you were not the first to bring in the labels. They are indeed part of the topic. However, your definition is way out there.
The repugnicans are the party of fascist control over one’s life these days. You may not have an abortion. You may not honor your spouse’s wish to take her off life support. You may not marry the person of your choice. You may not get health care at any facility you choose. You may not use any drug other than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine, despite the fact that the former is stronger than many outlawed drugs. All of these and many more are repugnican policies, not democrap policies.
I hate our two party system. I would love to have a zero party system where we could elect individual candidates based on their own actual politics. However, as long as we are stuck with picking the lesser of two evils, these days it is pretty clear that the vast majority of the time, the less controlling politicians are the democraps.
Alas that we have no significant other choices.
#18 bodiddlie,
Extremely well thought out and well reasoned post. Good job. Odd factoid, BTW, just in case anyone is curious, though it is admittedly somewhat irrelevant.
Even before abortion was legalized, the statistics showed that illegal abortions were safer for the mother than childbirth.
So, please remember that if you are thinking about outlawing abortions, even if you think you can prevent them, you are sentencing some women and girls to die so that those fetuses may be born.
I ended up learning this as a result of a discussion on my own blog related to abortion. Here’s the relevant post, scroll up and down through the topic for context of the discussion.
Why Pro-Choice is Pro-Life
#56 “We’re currently more likely to get it from the democraps than the repugnicans. ”
The same demo craps tht are outlawing smoking in your car in CA? ROFL.
#12, I agree wholeheartedly.
I would like to add: I consider it a life that needs protecting up until it is able to fend for itself. What age is that? It should be a case by case basis. Some people don’t mature until they are in their early 20’s (Hell, I didn’t develop a personality until I was 20 — some would say I haven’t yet 🙂 ). Some much younger. Until we have some way of determining, scientifically, when a mind is mature, we should keep a set age. I prefer 17 but 18 is just as good, I suspect.
You may not get health care at any facility you choose.What? I can get health care at any facility I can afford. Why should I have the right to demand more than that. If I can’t afford any facility, one is already appointed to me by the state (the local E.R. has to treat you).
You may not use any drug other than alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine,
And the Democraps are trying to ban those.
The same demo craps tht are outlawing smoking in your car in CA? ROFL.
Or the same ones that are trying to ban foods that might make you fat?
Or the same ones that tried to dictate to the music industry? Remember Dee Schneider telling Al Gore his wife was looking for bondage?
Or the same ones that have (until recently) banned guns from D.C.?
This is not an issue where the Democraps outshine the Publicans.
#41, Dusan,
Scientifically we have many prematurely born infants who survive after 5.5 months in womb.
Would you care to cite ONE case where the baby survived at 5.5 months? You said many, I would like just one.
#45, Bob,
… what you are claiming is that since her daughter is an idiot, that its obviously her fault. That makes no sense.
Yes, that logic is true. The failure of her mother’s teachings have caused her daughter to make her mistake. Maybe if the daughter and boyfriend had of been taught proper sex education she would not have gotten pregnant twice.
My brother after me however, got 2 girls pregnant, went to jail for drugs, and never graduated, and managed this before he even turned 18.
Thank you for the example.
… it means my brother was an idiot, who did stupid things.
True. Maybe if your mother had of taken the time to teach him that abstinence is very fragile around teenage hormones he might not have indulged without using some protection.
#47, Cow-Paddy,
#46 “Unfortunately, her mother has chosen to use her to forward her political career. ”
Really? When did that happen?
When she got on stage with them. When she published a photo of her family on the Alaska Governor’s web site. When she claimed to be the mother of five.
#48, OFTLO,
#28 – A “recreational” meth user????
Huh?
Sure. Haven’t you ever seen all the muscles meth users build up from their recreation?
#30
If you “weed” out the wacko liberals out of the Democratic party you haven’t got anything left (no pun intended) to win elections as been proven over the past 20+ years. At least Clinton was a moderate. I know the Democrats worship Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry and Gore but you have them to thanks for being out of touch with mainstream America.
#62–Thomas==”Stop the Hatred and Class Warfare!!!!!” is what I would say if I were a republican.
Truth has been often stated and yet the lies, spin, manipulation such as you post and seem to operate off of continue.
Very Roughly, America is 1/3 far left, 1/3 far right, AND 1/3 IN THE MIDDLE. The country is roughly 1/2 Dem and 1/2 Rep.
Thats why neither party can win without their base while “the majority” of people dislikes whoever wins.
I think it is somewhat “unnatural” for two party democracies to continue without a fascist from one side or the other trying to end the contest. The more fractured representational form of government found in parliaments seems more stable.