Sarah Palin: Damned if she did; damned if she didn't...
It has NEVER been about Bristol Palin. The whole thing with speculation about Bristol's pregnancy way back when came out of an Alaskan rumor justified by a few oddities in Sarah Palin's delivery of her youngest child. For me, the choices were:
Palin made a decision to fake her own pregnancy to keep her daughter's pregnancy out of the media. It would have been a strange thing to try, and so on, but would have revealed the attitudes of a mother concerned about her child, as well as a politician concerned about image.
The alternative apparently was (and apparently is), if the worst of the rumored factoids are all true,
that Governor Palin was:
1) willing to travel to Texas in the last 4-5 weeks of her pregnancy with a special needs child with potential health problems (Downs Syndrome baby);
2) after her water broke (or she "started leaking amnionic fluid"), she chose to give her speech anyway instead of going to a hospital;
3) boarded a plan knowing that she had a potential medical issue with her pregnancy while not informing the pilot so that she could
4) travel 10 hours by plane to return home and
5) didn't take advantage of the better-equipped hospital in Anchorage or
6) drive 6 miles to the better-equipped clinic closer to her final destination and instead
7) drove 45 miles to her relatively poorly equipped local clinic where she had her baby and
8) returned to work only 2 days later, rather than resting from her trip and bonding with her new special-needs infant.
In other words, we were left with deciding if she had attempted to pull a "fast one" to cover up her family's embarrassing private matters OR that she was a crazy woman.
Since she has now admitted to the same embarrassing private matter anyway, but that it is ongoing instead of taking place months ago, we are left with the impression that she is just plain crazy.
The possibility that the potential VP of the USA is "just plain crazy" is a national security matter, and NOT merely a political attack on her mother via an attack on her pregnant 17-year-old in what should be a private family matter.
It is Sarah Palin's behavior that is the issue here, either way, not her daughter's.
Exactly. To me, as we learn more about Sarah Palin, we see someone who likes to think of herself as unstoppable, able to kill grizzly bears with her bare hands all while breast feeding one baby and giving birth to another. Her energy and confidence is infectious, but it's also overblown and maybe dangerous to her and to those around her. She's a reckless, uncautious character, either ignorant or intentionally unaware of the dangers and complexities of the world around her, and therefore willing to jump impulsively into any situation, no matter how risky it may be, with perfect confidence that her energy will carry her through it. No doubt, this makes for an attractive personality, but at some point, one of those grizzly bears is going to get the best of her and devour her and her children with her. Let's just hope that grizzly bear isn't some great national crisis and her children the American people who have made her our President.
September 2, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reckless, incautious, impulsive -- in other words, just like John McCain. And David Brooks, of all people, made the point in his latest column that this is precisely what makes her a bad choice for McCain's VP.
It's really disorienting when David Brooks starts making such excellent sense...
September 3, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect, that is what I have been writing on all weekend and am not finished yet. The behavior makes no sense:
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/jnail/blog/&blogId=3446
And the decisions she made were not right as you point out:
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/jnail/blog/&blogId=3435blog/&blogId=3435
Stay tuned.
September 2, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the end of the day, no matter who you support, isn't some confidence in good decision making what we're all looking for?
The decision--which I believe Palin has copped to--to fly home at such a late stage of pregnancy begs to be questioned. The decision to bring Palin onboard without fully vetting her (do you really believe it would have taken five days for them to quibble with her being a Buchanan supporter if they'd had their ducks in a row?) by the McCain camp likewise begs to be questioned.
It goes to the heart of the matter on what kind of decisions will be made in a more formal, higher pressure (read White House) setting.
September 3, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly - and that's all anyone here has ever said, too. At every point in every discussion, everyone here, including me, made that clear.
Some of us are catching shit for even mentioning the pregnancy in our comments - and that's not even reasonable.
This is all very serious business. She raised every bit of this herself and no one exploited her children but Sarah Palin. She is walking proof that the Repugs only care about babies when they are sperms and eggs and zygotes - the minute they're outside, screw 'em - they don't have time.
September 3, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Another issue is the failure of McCain and Palin to disclose this immediately. Saying it's a private matter does not fly because nothing is private when you are running for office (rightly or wrongly). As such, their failure to disclose was a lie. What else are they hiding/lying about? These people need to be vetted because they will hold high positions and be subject to black mail.
The only person guilty of bringing Sarah Palin's children under the scrutiny of the media is Sarah Palin. We have never made this about Bristol. It's about her. It's also about the hypocrisy of republicans, who are ready to throw a parade in Bristol Palin's honor after they called 17 year-old Jamie Lynn Spears a slut for identical behavior. Which is it, Bill-O? Are Sarah Palin and Lynn Spears the two worst mothers in America, or are they poster women for the pro-life movement? Whatever your answer, it must be the same for both of them. And are Bristol and Jamie Lynn sluts or good, God-fearing pro-life girls? It's one or the other, but it must be the same answer for both.
September 3, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Extremely well said, no surprise given your name's English.
So many of my wife's friends have said and we've echoed: "I just wish that girl could come live with us until january and hide out from all this judgement."
September 3, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I note that the McCain campaign refuted the "unfounded" rumor that Sarah Palin faked her own pregnancy only indirectly, via the claim (also medically unsubstantiated) that Bristol is five months pregnant. No medical records. Just attacks on the character of anyone who dared to question the strange facts. No medical records yet... I wonder when they're going to release them.
September 3, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And they are angry at me for simply discussing her daughter's reproductive situation but it's perfectly acceptable for them to make laws that control my (hypothetical future) daughter's reproductive situation.
I wish I didn't have to discuss either Palin woman's reproductive situation, but since she made these issues front and center of her campaign (family values, her role as a mother as part of her qualification for the presidency), I don't see how not to pay a little attention to what is going on, even if some of it is just rumors.
That said, I tend not to believe the rumors. If Sarah Palin really did not give birth last year I believe there would be serious proof emerging. Doctors, family members, etc.... people aren't that good at keeping secrets.
And by the way, listing "Mother of 5" as qualification for VP is pretty sexist. If a man came out and said "Vote for me, I have 5 kids" everyone would laugh.
September 3, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink