Slog

no, no, no....pull up, pull up! we don't need to go there about children with special needs.

hypocrisy is only an issue if you're a Democrat.

why, jibberish? i think this is the first truly valid point yet about sarah palin's family affairs. i've listened to the gawdawful dr. laura enough to know that the religious right is supposed to disapprove of exactly the kind of putting-your-career-before-your-baby-(you-selfish-bitch) decisions palin is making.

What the hell is a radio psychologist?

dan
i'm absolutely LOVING the coverage of the whole shebang so far so don't stop there. but i do believe that this might be the case where calling the referring to the kid as 'retarded' might be counter productive. the terms - from 'down's syndome' to developementally disabled - exist so that people experiencing these the difficulies that arise from coping with these conditions aren't lumped together as a group and dismissed as stupid, the definition used in tandem with the term. the stigma makes it more difficult to deal with, which makes it worse.

i was referencing the retarded bit...but with the evengelical branch of the right it doesn't really matter. left is right, up is down. they can spin anything. remarkable really that they think of themselves as being tough thinkers who can't be fooled.

@1 and 5:

Dan wasn't referring to the child as retarded in his own opinion... he was pointing out what he interprets as Dobson's contradictory position.

Regardless, the last sentence made me choke on my sandwich

Oh Dan please, not even in jest. There is bad juju karma attached to such indiscretion.

Beside the fact that the little guy doesn't deserve such treatment.

@7 go after dobson for his real hypocrisies not his imagined ones it weakens the argument and leaves it open to attack.

The hypocrisy...just staggering. It's not just Dobson, either. Richard Land and Tony Perkins are trying to make Bristol Palin the poster child for the pro-life movement, no mention of the fact that she's pregnant out of wedlock. Can you imagine the shit they'd all be talking if this happened to one of the Obama kids, or one of the Bidens? These asshats are only relgious in the sense that they worship power, so they'll say anything to further their political agenda, which in this case is four more years of Republican bullshit in the White House.

So why are we taxpayers going to foot the bill for this four-month old anyway?

what's the worst that could happen...it could grow up to be president?

I've read & heard the statement several times now that it's inappropriate to ask if Palin can care for a special-needs infant while campaigning for VP and that no one would ask the same question of a man. I'd like to point out that people did ask a very similar question of John Edwards: how could he campaign for president when his wife was undergoing treatment for breast cancer, especially with two small children to care for? It's a question of morals, because most of us mistrust people who toss aside sick or needy family members in favor of their own personal advancement, and it's a question of ability, since we need our leaders to be able to focus their undivided attention on the important issues facing our country.

Sarah Palin's baby illustrates a classic Republican focus on the first trimester of "life" while ignoring everything from prenatal care to health care for infants and small children to maternity leave for working mothers. My biggest question about a leader who goes to work three days after giving birth to a child is, is she going to expect the rest of us to do that, too?

I feel bad for the little guy. He has become a political pawn, for both the left and the right. Poor baby.