Political Musings
Political Musings, specifically focusing on the Palin matter, in response to some friends' questions and thoughts. Behind a cut, cause some folks just don't care. And left public, cause some folks who might have opinions worth hearing may not be on my flist.
My friends' positions seem to boil down to "why are the Palin kids fair game when nobody else's kids are being discussed?" Which is a fair question, on the surface. I've done some analysis in their journals, then realized that if I'm overtyping the limit on any one post, I've got too much to say to clutter up their LJs with and should make a post of my own, so here we are. :)
I'm also going to note that I don't personally deal with the kids much. I tend to share Obama's general opinion that the kids are off-limits.
** BUT **
But when you the candidate make the kids central to your candidacy, then some general observations are NOT off-limits. Let's be really fair here -- let's even say that nothing that happened with the kids before you got into public life is on the table. Whatever it is, none of it's fair game or on the table. This wipes hubby's 20+ yr old drunk driving conviction right out of the discussion -- which I think makes sense. It hasn't been repeated, let it go. Youthful error, lesson learned, nobody hurt, who cares.
You want to be discussing your oldest's military service? He should be IN UNIFORM you dumb bitch, if his service is on the table in a public context. Disrespectful to leave him in civvies while you discuss his military career in public -- disrespectful to the service involved, disrespectful to all those who lived and died in the uniform of this country.
You want sainthood points for birthing a disabled child? OK, fine. Then it's fair game for people to wonder how you're going to meet that child's special needs while jet-setting all over the world doing the job you've been nominated to run for. It's FAIR to wonder how you're going to do both of those exceedingly important jobs at once -- especially since two weeks ago you didn't know what one of them entailed. So how are you going to do it?
Your teenage daughter is pregnant? OK, I don't care, that's her business and not mine. Except that your political party has made it a point to tell every other person how to live THEIR personal lives, how to think and how to arrange their emotions and all kinds of other things. Marriage is defined -- only by your political party. Just say no is policy, thanks to your party's platform. Birth control can be refused because of policies implemented by your party's platform. Abstinence is the only acceptable answer, according to your party's platform. The phrase "hoist by your own petard" comes to mind -- and I notice that you are NOT living your personal life according to the dictates of your party's platform.
It's your political party, Gov Palin, that has made sure that welfare won't support that young unskilled mother and child long enough for them to get any education or have any chance in the world. I'm glad YOU are solvent enough to provide for them. Not every young pregnant unwed mother has that ... opportunity? privilege? luxury? something along those lines.
How are you going to manage energy questions that might go directly against your husband's employment history? Talk about a massive conflict of interest. And yes, every other candidate's working spouse has had to answer the same sort of questions, usually in a much more hostile format than this one.
There's more, but it's a weekend and there's massive household restructuring to be done, so I'm out of time to be at all political. I just think that some questions are fair, and are fairly asked of people who put themselves into public life. (Y'all probably don't know that every time I've typed that phrase so far, it's come out as 'public lice' and needed to be edited ... LOL!)
There's room for reasonable minds to differ. I look forward to what differences people might want to raise in this forum. Enjoy!
My friends' positions seem to boil down to "why are the Palin kids fair game when nobody else's kids are being discussed?" Which is a fair question, on the surface. I've done some analysis in their journals, then realized that if I'm overtyping the limit on any one post, I've got too much to say to clutter up their LJs with and should make a post of my own, so here we are. :)
I'm also going to note that I don't personally deal with the kids much. I tend to share Obama's general opinion that the kids are off-limits.
** BUT **
But when you the candidate make the kids central to your candidacy, then some general observations are NOT off-limits. Let's be really fair here -- let's even say that nothing that happened with the kids before you got into public life is on the table. Whatever it is, none of it's fair game or on the table. This wipes hubby's 20+ yr old drunk driving conviction right out of the discussion -- which I think makes sense. It hasn't been repeated, let it go. Youthful error, lesson learned, nobody hurt, who cares.
You want to be discussing your oldest's military service? He should be IN UNIFORM you dumb bitch, if his service is on the table in a public context. Disrespectful to leave him in civvies while you discuss his military career in public -- disrespectful to the service involved, disrespectful to all those who lived and died in the uniform of this country.
You want sainthood points for birthing a disabled child? OK, fine. Then it's fair game for people to wonder how you're going to meet that child's special needs while jet-setting all over the world doing the job you've been nominated to run for. It's FAIR to wonder how you're going to do both of those exceedingly important jobs at once -- especially since two weeks ago you didn't know what one of them entailed. So how are you going to do it?
Your teenage daughter is pregnant? OK, I don't care, that's her business and not mine. Except that your political party has made it a point to tell every other person how to live THEIR personal lives, how to think and how to arrange their emotions and all kinds of other things. Marriage is defined -- only by your political party. Just say no is policy, thanks to your party's platform. Birth control can be refused because of policies implemented by your party's platform. Abstinence is the only acceptable answer, according to your party's platform. The phrase "hoist by your own petard" comes to mind -- and I notice that you are NOT living your personal life according to the dictates of your party's platform.
It's your political party, Gov Palin, that has made sure that welfare won't support that young unskilled mother and child long enough for them to get any education or have any chance in the world. I'm glad YOU are solvent enough to provide for them. Not every young pregnant unwed mother has that ... opportunity? privilege? luxury? something along those lines.
How are you going to manage energy questions that might go directly against your husband's employment history? Talk about a massive conflict of interest. And yes, every other candidate's working spouse has had to answer the same sort of questions, usually in a much more hostile format than this one.
There's more, but it's a weekend and there's massive household restructuring to be done, so I'm out of time to be at all political. I just think that some questions are fair, and are fairly asked of people who put themselves into public life. (Y'all probably don't know that every time I've typed that phrase so far, it's come out as 'public lice' and needed to be edited ... LOL!)
There's room for reasonable minds to differ. I look forward to what differences people might want to raise in this forum. Enjoy!