Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Palin says: My daughter’s pregnant

By

Wow, you couldn’t make this stuff up.  

Per this debate on BMG, Sarah Palin announced her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.  

The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said on Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.

Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin’s five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

If you’re keeping score at home, how do you score this one?  

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. a private family matter.  Wish Bristol and her soon-to-be husband only the best and take the high road.  

    • …and the narrative is about liberal bloggers dragging Palin’s family through the mud.

      <

      p>Can we please get back to discussing substantive issues around McCain’s ill-thought choice?

      <

      p>From the Independent:

      <

      p>

      McCain officials said the news of the daughter’s pregnancy was being released to rebut what one aide called “mud-slinging and lies” circulating on liberal blog sites.

      According to these rumors, Sarah Palin had faked a pregnancy and pretended to have given birth in May to her fifth child, a son named Trig who has Down syndrome. The rumor was that Trig was actually Bristol Palin’s child and that Sarah Palin was the grandmother.

      A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream news media.

      “The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama’s name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their ‘campaign of change,'” a senior aide said.

      • puh-leaze, this won’t hurt us in the slightest. This is back and forth political battles. Believe me, we just won the round – with half the liberal online movement afraid of throwing a punch.  

    • Unfortunately for McCain (and the rest of us as well), there is no such thing as a “private family matter” in modern politics, especially when you are running as the candidate of the party that pretends to promote “family values”. While I think everyone should leave the daughter herself alone, I think it is fair game to point out how this situation is at odds with Palin’s opposition to sex education programs.

        • I only read several news reports stating that she is a strong proponent of abstinence-only programs (which cannot really be considered sex education since it entirely avoids talking about sex), and I have not doubt that somewhere there are quotes from her to back it up. But I am sure that you can google just as well as I can.

        • because her policies re: sex education and religious-right social values are well, well documented. It’s right up there with asking for a source for the fact that she’s anti-choice. Some things are just common knowledge.  

          • For making an assertion, with no basis.

            <

            p>In 2006, a candidate questionnaire was completed as follows:

            <

            p>

            Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

            SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

            <

            p>So, we know she doesn’t support ‘explicit sex-ed programs’, you know, like most parents.

            <

            p>In context, most of her answers appear to support the notion that she strongly favor parental choice in matters of education.

            • Today’s survey was released by a consortium of conservative Christian groups, including the Christian Coalition of American, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women of America and the National Abstinence Clearinghouse.

              The survey, by Zogby International, polled 1,245 adults, most of them with school-age children. The coalition said an unidentified private donor financed the poll.

              Correction: February 19, 2003, Wednesday An article on Thursday about parental attitudes toward sex education referred incorrectly to one sponsor of the survey, the National Abstinence Clearinghouse. It is a secular organization, not a Christian one.

              <

              p>As we all know, how a question is asked will influence how it’s answered – Gary and the NY Times have cited an unrepresentative poll.

              • the survey says that most parents approved of their children being taught about the use of condoms and contraceptives. That is most certainly not “abstinence-only”.

                <

                p>I suspect that Gary did not actually read the article before linking to it. So much for “making assertions with no basis”.

                • It appears you can’t read at all.  Baby steps:

                  <

                  p>Read her answer to the questionnaire; she very plain states that she favors funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of

                  <

                  p>1 ) for explicit sex-education programs,
                  2) school-based clinics, and
                  3) the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

                  <

                  p>There is not a single word of support that she disapproves teaching the use of condoms and contraceptives.  

                  <

                  p>Not one word.  

                  <

                  p>Is there any support that parents seek or approve of “explicit sex-education programs”.

                • Several reports make it clear that she has argued strongly for the abstinence-only approach. I don’t know why you are wasting so much time arguing based on your assumption that she does not actually support abstinence-only. Won’t that make you foolish when it turns out you are wrong?

                  <

                  p>Furthermore, your link does not say what you claim it does. Unless you think that teaching kids how to use condoms does not qualify as “explicit sex-ed”.

                • First, the GOP 2008 platform calls for a shift of funding away from family planning and towards abstinence education.  Are you saying that Palin doesn’t agree with the Platform?

                  <

                  p>Second, the pre-VP candidate Palin has been scrubbed from internet.  Try going to PalinForGovernor.com, and you’ll find yourself on McCain’s page.  I can’t find a thing about Palin’s views on that web page.  She has all but been vanished by the McCain campaign.  So, you tell us gary, what does Palin stand for.  Can you find anything to link to to support your conclusions?  Or has she now just become Mini McCain?

                • I was upset about Palin’s page disappearing, till I realized Biden’s had too…and he’s up for Senate re-election this year.  Just seems to be how things go.

                • Several reports make it clear that she has argued strongly for the abstinence-only approach. <?blockquote>

                  Is it too much to ask for a link, a source.

                • I don’t know her position.

                  <

                  p>I know she favors federal funding of abstinence only over 1) in school clinics 2) sexually explicit education and 3) passing out of condoms in school.  Beyond that, admittedly, I don’t know, but I’m not making shit up like you are.

              • The zogby poll was statistically flawed?

                <

                p>The clip-and-paste doesn’t have sufficient information for you to conclude that.  You read it polled 1245 adults, most with school age children, and claim unrepresented.

                <

                p>do explain.

                • …that reaches the same conclusions, and I’ll believe that these results are valid.  Given who sponsored this survey, there’s no way it’s representative of America as a whole.

                • Show me a survey by a non-partisan group…
                  …that reaches the same conclusions, and I’ll believe that these results are valid.  Given who sponsored this survey, there’s no way it’s representative of America as a whole.

                  <

                  p>there you go.  

                  <

                  p>Step 1: Make shit up.

                  <

                  p>Step 2: Ask your opposition to refute.

                  <

                  p>To reiterate:  You said the poll was not representative.  You typed it.  Prove it. Support it. It was commissioned by a secular group not regligious group (so the NYT says) Now, admittedly I’ve only taught 15 or 20 Statistics classes over the years at undergrad level, but given the info from that link, I don’t see the statistical error. You must have better info, or else a better grasp of the polling methodology than I.

      • If Palin knew her daughter was pregnant before accepting McCain’s offer, you really have to wonder where her priorities are. She had to understand that there would be no way to keep the news secret and that accepting the VP slot would therefore expose her daughter to a lot of unwanted attention. It makes it seem that motherhood is pretty far down on her priority list.

        • If Palin practiced what she preached, namely the  Republican mantra of so-called Family Values, one would think that her focus would be on her family and not on an all-but-certain defeat in an election.  Caring for a tiny special needs baby and a seventeen-year-old pregnant daughter is a full-time job. It’s not like she’s taking a part-time job at the Wasilla Walmart.  

          •  Pleaded for time off to be with his wife after her “breakdown”. Cadillac took this free media vacation to traverse the state. Yeah right. If you have never had a baby in your family before or without marriage, then you can cast the first rock. Otherwise, it happens to every family, especially Democrats with their loose or lack, of values. I’ll still take my chances with Palin. BTW: It was Sarah Palin’s CHOICE to have her fifth child. If you’ve never been in that situation then shut up. It’s a decision to be made between the mother and father.

    • Palin is vehemently against abortion, and is on the record as saying she would oppose an abortion even if her daughter was raped. If McCain (a big fan of Bush’s abstinence-only sex education programs) and Palin had their way, Palin’s daughter would be unable to “choose” to keep her baby.

        • Somehow my finger bounced on the post key even before I was ready to send.

          <

          p>Just want to say that Palin’s views on reproductive freedom and sex education and access to contraception are indeed scary, and should be hit hard.  It’s dangerous (as well as unkind) to go heavy on the direct references to her daughter, though.  

          • Right, but Palin and McCain support government intervention into private family matters by eliminating a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

      • Just to be accurate, McCain wants to allow abortions in case of rape/incest, or if the life of the mother is in jeapordy.

    • One of the costs to those who have high-profile roles in governance is the “gold fish bowl” effect.  It is to be hoped that as John McCain plucked Gov. Palin and upped the ante for her as to the size of the goldfish bowl, he will be loyal to his pick.

      <

      p>I agree that this is a private family matter, does not say anything about Palin’s fitness at all, and not worth discussing here except to see how McCain stands by Palin.

      <

      p>I was not happy with then-candidate Reilly’s treatment of Rep. LaFluer, for example.  If you pick a running mate, and have done whatever “vetting” you choose to do, dropping them after exposing them to the “gold fish bowl” is just not what I think of as a class act.  

  2. Ah yes, here it is:

    <

    p>

    We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

    <

    p>I wonder if the respect for privacy she is asking from the media might also be a little more forthcoming from Republicans in general who don’t apparently have any qualms about trampling the privacy of other people’s daughters?  You know, other people’s daughters who harbor a, um, private desire not to get pregnant by obtaining contraception?  

    • I guess abstinence only doesn’t work. Does McCain have dementia, I guess this choice shows that he is none other then a real life Mr.Magoo. I think this picture describes McCains campaign right now.

      <

      p>http://routingbyrumor.files.wo…

    • Are you trying to be the new Andrew Sullivan?  No name, so it MUST be true.  Unlike Fowler’s recorded comments, which it was Wrong to release.

      <

      p>The new objective standard is just make stuff up?  How about a ‘Citation, Please’?

      • and cynical tokenism displayed by the offering of Sarah Palin as a qualified candidate as the Vice President of the United States is reprehensible.  I see your point entirely.

        <

        p>If the landlords are offended, I’ll respect their wishes to take it down.  They know where to find me.

        <

        p>Your sensibilities, however, are not my concern.  You have displayed, I might add, a similar disregard for my sensibilities in the past on a much more personal level, and I didn’t ask the landords to take down your offensive post.  

        • and I love the tone.

          <

          p>However, it’s not quite correct.  When you “see” a bet you match it.  If you “see and raise” you match it and the raise is the additional pot.

          <

          p>Therefore, the phrase would only make sense if Palin were a black woman.

          <

          p>shrugs

          • I should add a disclaimer stating that as a term of art it’s not quite according to Hoyle?  

            <

            p>I really like it, too.  It’s all the things you say it is–including a little inaccurate.  

        • and dehumanizing of both Senator Obama and Governor Palin.  It reduces the senator to his color and the governor to her “plumbing.” Racist and sexist in one poisonous little tag.  I hope it doesn’t infect the rest of the site.

          <

          p>It’s a pity you even had to ask.  

          • I hope you realize that there are people who see Obama as nothing more than a Negro, and Palin as no more than a vagina.  And they’re banking on other Americans not seeing beyond their own bigotries.  They’re called the GOP.

            • the satire or the snark.  Oh well.  The world is full of concrete thinkers who cannot do a thing with satire or snarky humor; they take everything so literally.  I don’t know if that poster is one of them, but it sure sounds it so far given the fact that s/he doesn’t seem to understand I’m mocking the very thinking she deplores.  

              • lightiris.  Forgive me for even suggesting you should clean it up with something actually pithy, as opposed to merely crass.  The English language has roughly a quarter of a million words in it, and the ones you chose, literary jewels one and all, are clearly beyond criticism.    

                • You registered your disapproval, and it was duly noted.

                  <

                  p>I think the words that are there are pithy enough and communicate exactly what I want them to.  One person’s crass is another person’s clever.  

                  <

                  p>And for the record, the English language has well over half a million words in it (god bless my bible, the OED) and there are many in it that are jewels beyond compare.  Here’s one of my favorites:  charientism.  A classic, that.    

            • but it isn’t “excellent.”  This is on par with Don Imus…and as I recall, most were not amused.  It creates more heat than light.  And Laurel, there were plenty of people who saw Hillary in a very limited, derogatory fashion and they weren’t just Republicans.  Somehow, I expected better from my party than this.

  4. What is so wrong with Iris’s tagline, your a Republican right. I thought you guys were allabout free speech. Besides its tongue and cheek and any idiot can see that its mocking the fact that if Hillary weren’t so popular McCain would have chosen Romney.

    • shows that you don’t know of which you speak. Privately amongst my friends we hoped in our wildest dreams that McCain would pick Jindal or Palin.  They are the future of the Republican party.  They are both no nonsense administrators and visionaries.  McCain has seen an increase of $10M in 72 hours in fundraising.  That should show you how juiced up the GOP is over the Palin pick.  Friends of mine who were thinking of voting for Bob Barr because they didn’t think McCain was conservative enough are now voting for McCain.  This was more about shoring up the base as it was about appealing to swing voters.  McCain has done both in the same pick.

      <

      p>Your ideological prism is not allowing you to see this.

  5. but McCain says he knew about it before making his pick? I’m sorry but I gotta call bullshit on that one.

  6. I see this story all over the media, but I honestly don’t understand why it is being treated as a big deal. Not trying to make a point here — I’m just confused why this is a story at all.

    <

    p>(I am someone who otherwise thinks Palin was an awful pick, BTW).

        • I generally agree with the sentiment that kids should be out of bounds. I think a lot of things used to be left unspoken by the press — JFK’s affairs, etc.

          <

          p>But they’re not left unspoken anymore, and I don’t think you can unbreak that egg. We’ve got a whole industry involved in spying on celebrities, and that includes politicians. (John Edwards says hi.) And pols put their kids all over their campaigns — from school committee up to President. It’s a byword for reliable, loyal, trustworthy, dutiful, etc. Is it true? Maybe.

          <

          p>If family is out of bounds, then it should be out of bounds for everyone. Howard Dean’s wife did her best to stay out of the public eye, but even she was called to be more a part of his campaign after a while.

          <

          p>As a culture, we have gone a long, long way down the road of hypocrisy when it comes to the connection between a politician’s personal life and their leadership. The old feminist saw, “The personal is political”, is actually part of the problem: If that’s true, then everything is on the board when you run for office, and all policy questions are subject to relentless ad hominem attacks.

          <

          p>And if family stuff is in bounds, any flaws are irresistible to the innate ruthlessness of a partisan mindset. No, liberals are not immune to that at all — partly because we feel “our guys” have been beaten up so much over it, from MLK to Gary Hart to Bill Clinton. In the end, this destroys otherwise promising careers, keeps people out of office, and generally reduces the amount of actual lawmaking/policy talent we have in government.

          <

          p>Ugh. How do we back up this here truck?

          • covers up something her family did, that’s not out of bounds. The story ceases to be about the family and becomes about the politician.

            <

            p>Honestly, if a politician doesn’t want stories to be about their family, they shouldn’t be a politician. I hate to say it, but it’s sort of a fact at this point.  

            • If a politician covers up something a family member (especially a minor) did legally and without misappropriating money or time of government employees, and then doesn’t ever use any part of the coverup in a political context, then you leave it alone.

              <

              p>Now… did Sarah Palin ever use her story of being pregnant with a Down Syndrome baby as political fodder for the pro-life crowd?  Did she use Alaskan money or government time to assist in the cover up?  If so, it’s fair game to unearth any lies.  If not, you leave it alone.

              <

              p>An elected politician is still entitled to have a private life, and as long as the politician doesn’t make that private life public by leveraging it for political gain or using government resources, he or she is entitled to the privacy.  The politician is human, and entitled to a life away from work, just like the rest of us.

              • Now… did Sarah Palin ever use her story of being pregnant with a Down Syndrome baby as political fodder for the pro-life crowd?  Did she use Alaskan money or government time to assist in the cover up?  If so, it’s fair game to unearth any lies.  If not, you leave it alone.

                <

                p>there’s no way any of the allegations could be true without the above me doing. I’m sorry, but no way, no how.

                <

                p>All that said, this is probably all moot anyway, given what we know now, but in general I don’t find it a good idea to say one thing, then leave yourself open with caveats wider than the Grand Canyon is deep.  

                • Even I didn’t get my first sentence LOL. I clearly didn’t edit that stinker.

                  <

                  p>

                  there’s no way any of the allegations could be true without the above me doing being true, too.

                  <

                  p>I think I started writing a sentence and stopped, then started again… but wrote a completely different sentence. LOL.  

              • latest pregnancy as pro-life fodder.  You better believe it.  And the pro-lifers are lapping it up.  SHE made the personal political in that matter.

        • Abstinence-*only* to be precise. (Hell, I’m in favor of abstinence education, along with contraception and the whole nine yards. Tell ’em everything.)

          <

          p>Can anyone make a link?  Did we run out of HTML?

    • Palin’s of the abstinence-only, sex-after-marriage, no-abortions-under-any-circumstances type of republican mindset. It’s just hypocritical, that’s all.  

  7. The McCain campaign says it was aware of her daughter’s pregnancy before it named her as the running mate on Friday.

    • What this says to me is that the McCain campaign did little to actually vet Palin. Her daughter is 5 months pregnant. Notice that this was released today during the massive coverage of hurricane Gustav. Palin is an abstinence only supporter. How does this reconcile with conservative family values. Where has she been as a mother to her children? Particularly with a Downs child also. Is she ambitious? Certainly.

      <

      p>McCain is trying to go after the women’s vote. I consider Palin’s candidancy to be an insult to women across America. This is republican hypocracy aimed to winning at any cost.

      <

      p>Can’t wait to hear Pat Buchanan explain this one as “family values” on Hardball!

      • … that if Palin knew her daughter was pregnant that she didn’t share such info with McCain.  I would think she will be off the ticket by Tuesday night if this is the case.  Otherwise, how was the vetting process supposed to pick this up?  McCain lawyer: “Hey Bristol honey, be a good girl and go pee on this little strip of paper for me.”

        <

        p>I think it’s possible, although unlikely, that Palin didn’t know until after she was anointed.  

  9. I don’t understand why this press release “counters” these rumors- on the contrary, it legitimizes the rumors

  10. but I don’t think it really explains away, one way or the other, the more serious allegation. That said, I’m more than happy to ‘believe’ this is baby #1 for this daughter and focus on the fact that her mother would choose to skip going hospitals in Texas or Seattle, while giving a keynote address and then taking a long-ass flight to Alaska, then skipping the Anchorage hospitals for a backwater clinic 45 extra minutes out of the way to deliver a down syndrome baby from a 43 year old mother. Yea, that’s good judgement… Actually, par for the course in the Republican Party.  

    • Trig is 4 months old, and Bristol is 5 months pregnant. Even if they’re fudging the numbers, it takes about 4-10 weeks after childbirth for a woman to start ovulating.  

      • what exactly does that mean? Is she 20 weeks, 16 weeks? It really doesn’t say.  I mean it is possible for her to be pregnant again if she gave birth in April.

        • I’m willing to let it go at this point. For one thing, I know people will still be looking into it. For another, the fact that the whole plane story is actually now definitively true shows an appalling lack of judgement and hypocrisy

        • … what are the odds that this 17-year-old girl, daughter of a governor, on April 18th  gave birth to a child with Downs Syndrome that the family has jumped through enormous hoops to cover up, and then resumes her unprotected sexual relationship within 4-6 weeks of childbirth only to get pregnant again, and then the family throws out an purposely inaccurate number of “5-months” knowing full well that everyone in America will expect a new Palin baby come december and will become suspicious if the baby is born 1 or two months late?

          <

          p>That’s bizarre. Possible, I guess, and stranger things have happened, but I have to go with reason here and feel confident that, given the available evidence, it looks like Bristol is on her first pregnancy.

          <

          p>The whole mono disappearence by Bristol and the governor flying after her water broke stuff is still wierd and hints that there’s somethings the Palins are hiding, but the given the evidence there are many more plausible explainations to fit the known facts then the one I postulate above.  

  11. The news can only be scored by “who won the day.” Everything else can only be done in hindsight.

    <

    p>We won the day. Something clearly was fishy – and this doesn’t kill the potentially more damaging story. I don’t think she’ll last the week.  

      • he’s inevitable, at this point. Honestly, he’s better for their ticket anyway, sadly. I’m only glad we got to have a St. Fluer moment first.  

        • If they were to switch veeps, wouldn’t that have to happen before Palin is nominated at the convention and accepts?

          <

          p>I don’t know what the procedure is if a veep candidate for some reason leaves the ticket between the convention and election.  

          • Thomas Eagleton left the ticket two weeks after the convention in 1972. The Democratic National Committee ended up convening a special session to approve his replacement, Sargent Shriver.

            <

            p>While I don’t know for sure that the RNC works exactly the same way in 2008 as the DNC in 1972, it seems a reasonable guess.

  12. From TPM Election Central:

    <

    p>

    The Anchorage Daily News, in its write-up of the announcement that 17-year-old Bristol Palin is pregnant, reveals that Sarah Palin’s spokesperson didn’t know about this two days ago:

    The Daily News had asked Palin’s press secretary, Bill McAllister, over the weekend to address rumors that Bristol was pregnant.
    “I don’t know. I have no evidence that Bristol’s pregnant,” he said on Saturday.

    The McCain campaign says they knew about the pregnancy, but this suggests the possibility that they didn’t — and raises further questions about how thoroughly McCain vetted, and how much he knew, and knows, about the person he selected as his back-up commander-in-chief.

    <

    p>Aye carumba!

    • McCain is lying to cover up the fact that Palin omitted to tell him about her family crisis. I’m sure McCain’s handlers are ready to ring Palin’s neck.

      • When sufficiently desperate, introduce something, anything, about Deval Patrick to distract attention away from Republican incompetence.

        <

        p>That said, I’m sure he is a fine press person.  It’s his superiors who are incompetent.  

        • with your example of “Republican Incompetence”.

          <

          p>There are plenty of examples of that. This just wasn’t one of them.

          <

          p>And I think we can all agree that Deval needed a better press person at the beginning. Doesn’t make him a bad person.

          • What I meant by “off-script” was more in keeping with the idea that he had no idea because a) they didn’t tell him (not his fault) or b) they had no idea and didn’t have time to prep him.  

            <

            p>At any rate, it’s not good when your spokesperson is caught flat-footed like this.  

            • why would you think that he didn’t have a an idea? Granted,, we’re really starting to split hairs here, but I read it as a textbook political non-answer.

              <

              p>However, I think you and I agree on the fact that McCain had no idea this was coming and is probably ready to release his notorious temper on her.  

  14. The story comes out on a holiday, when Gustav puts life in perspective for many of us. Palin’s statement doesn’t present the pregnancy as a “family crisis”, but neither does it shy away from the difficulty facing these young parents. Regardless of one’s politics, I think the inclusion of the father in her statement is a refreshing and much needed change in our public dialog on teen pregnancy.

    <

    p>Obama’s reaction was admirable:

    <

    p>

    Mr. Obama said the pregnancy “has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president.” He added that, “my mother had me when she was 18. How family deals with issues and teen-age children – that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics.”

    “So,” he added, “I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories.”

    • …plus, when some crap like this comes out about Obama, he can point to this statement to explain how he feels about stories of that vein.

      • OBAMA: “If I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that [spread rumors about Palin’s baby], they’d be fired.”

        <

        p>McCAIN: [On James Corsi’s libelous anti-Obama book] “Gotta keep your sense of humor.”

        <

        p>Alec Guinness, indeed.

Archives