Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Palin/McCain's problem?

Sarah Palin's soon-to-be son-in-law, Levi Johnston
Courtesy: Associated Press

Hurricane Gustav may have threatened to knock the Republicans right off the news this week, but it was nothing that a pregnant 17 year old daughter can't shove aside. So Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. It sounds like the internet poop-disturbers circled some rumors that pushed this news out. The rumors claimed Bristol had already given birth to a different child, the five month old boy with Down's Syndrome named Trig, but Sarah pretended SHE is the one who gave birth to the child (I'm pretty sure I may have already seen this on an episode of Desperate Housewives. My wife makes we watch. No, really she does).



Something doesn't add up here. The big problem to me would that Bristol is now five months pregnant. I don't quite know how she could have given birth to a different child five months ago. That's some fuzzy math.

The cable talking heads are wondering whether John McCain's peeps vetted Palin enough. Did McCain know about the pregnancy when he picked her? McCain's campaign says he did. The bigger question to me is this...does this even matter? Should Palin's daughter be this much of a news story? A 17 year old daughter. Does this mean Palin is less of a Christian (she's apparently a big supporter of abstinence education) or a failure as a Christian just because her unwed teen got pregnant by a teen hockey player? Are candidates' children and the lives and choice they make important to you--should they be a factor when you decide whether to vote for their parent?


2 comments:

Shane Vander Hart said...

The only time I would look at the kids when vetting a candidate is if there is a pattern of the kids going nuts and getting in trouble with the law, etc. Then I would say maybe because then you have to wonder about their parenting. The argument that would follow is if they can't manage their own family how can they manage a town, state, or country? But we don't know all of the circumstances and I think that as a rule the kids should be off limits. I don't recall anyone going after Chelsea Clinton. Palin's kids should be treated the same.

But what is going on here is a different story and does not demonstrate a pattern. Those of us who have kids know that though we train up our kids they are free moral agents and will sometimes make decisions that are contrary to what we believe.

I think the Palins have demonstrated much love and support - which is what Bristol needs. This shouldn't be a campaign issue because again 17-year-olds for the most part make their own decisions.

I don't think Bristol's decision is a reflection on her parents' faith. Their response is a reflection of their faith and it has shown much mercy and grace.

Regarding McCain's vetting of Palin. Yes they have. They knew about this before, and felt it wasn't a disqualifer.

You know the funny thing is that those making the argument that Palin's kids should be looked at are typically the same ones who said Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs don't matter. Which I think is crazy since it spoke to his character. I mean if his own wife can't trust him why should I?

Anonymous said...

Previous blogger hit the nail right on the head!