Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Overheard in a Coffeeshop Outs... | And Would You Like Some Cloned... »

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

On Palin

posted by on September 2 at 13:49 PM

wwp-photo2.jpg

I’ve been out this past week, so I haven’t had a chance to weigh in on the whole Sarah Palin clusterfuck, but now I’m back and wow, what a gift to Barack Obama. And I’m not just talking about her 17-year-old daughter Bristol’s pregnancy (more on that in a moment). Other Sloggers have mentioned Palin’s political history already, but allow me to renumerate it briefly here.

She’s a member of the Alaska Independence Party, a group more radically secessionist than the Nation of Islam.

She’s a staunch opponent of universal health care.

She said she would support a ballot measure denying benefits to same-sex couples.

She is an anti-abortion absolutist, even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect a woman’s health (and even if her own daughters were raped).

She called wacky Libertarian Ron Paul a “cool… good guy,” adding, eloquently, “He’s independent of like the party machine, I’m like, right on, so am I.”

She’s a member of a group that believes most contraceptives cause abortions.

She campaigned as an anti-corruption crusader while securing millions of dollars in Congressional earmarks for her town.

She is under investigation for firing Alaska’s public safety director, allegedly because he refused to sack her former brother-in-law.

She laughed repeatedly when a radio host referred to Alaska’s Senate President Lyda Green—a cancer survivor and political opponent of Palin—as a “cancer” and a “bitch.”

She was a director of disgraced Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens’ “Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.,” 527 group, which could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors (she also recorded a commercial with Stevens for her 2006 campaign).

She flat-out lied about opposing Alaska’s infamous Bridge to Nowhere, which she, in fact, supported.

So even without raising the issue of her daughter’s pregnancy—and leaving aside the completely ridiculous nonissue of whether a mother can be qualified to serve as vice-president (hello, Daddy Biden?)—there’s plenty about Palin for liberals to hate.

But let’s talk about that pregnancy. Should it be, as Barack Obama said, “off limits”?

Dan says no, and so do I—though with a major caveat, and for slightly different reasons.

As mentioned above, Sarah Palin believes in abstinence-only education and that everyone should abstain from sex completely until marriage. She also believes that abortion should be illegal in every single instance except when a doctor deems that it will save the life of a woman—that is, in virtually every circumstance including rape and incest. Additionally, she says she would “choose life” for her daughters, even if they were raped—a statement that implies she believes that a teenage girl’s uterus belongs not just to the government, but to her parents. In other words, if one of Palin’s daughters gets knocked up, she wants the law to require them to bring the fetus to term. If the law doesn’t do it, she will. If Sarah Palin had her way, every pregnant teen in the country would be forced to bring their pregnancies to term.

On the other hand: The McCain campaign has made every effort to stress that Bristol Palin is not being coerced into having a baby. In a statement, the campaign said Bristol made the choice to keep her baby—a choice that, if Sarah Palin and John McCain had their way, she would not have had. Sarah Palin believes the government should have authority over women’s reproductive organs—including, presumably, her daughter Bristol’s. That the campaign has stressed Bristol’s “choice” in the matter is flaming hypocrisy of the most pandering, despicable kind.

Even more despicable, however, is Palin’s hypocrisy on abstinence-only education—a system that substitutes for comprehensive sex education the premise that all people should abstain from sex completely until they’re married. Had Palin’s daughter followed her mom’s preferred curriculum, she wouldn’t be a knocked-up, unmarried 17-year-old. But, as Palin is no doubt aware, abstinence-only doesn’t work—and her daughter is living proof of that well-documented, incontrovertible fact. Liberals—including Barack Obama—have every right to call Palin (and other conservatives, including evangelicals) on their hypocrisy in calling for abstinence-until-marriage while celebrating the pregnancy of an unwed teenager.

All of that said, I do disagree with Dan on one fundamental point. He wrote:

Perhaps if [Bristol Palin’s boyfriend, 17-year-old Levi Johnston] and his girlfriend had received a little comprehensive sex education and had access to birth control—over the objections of his girlfriend’s mother/the governor of the state in which he lives—Johnston wouldn’t be confronting the pressures and responsibilities of fatherhood at 18.

The truth is, we don’t know the exact circumstances under which Bristol Palin got pregnant. Maybe she wanted a baby. (Hey, it is Alaska). Maybe they were using a condom and it broke. Maybe she was on the pill. Maybe she didn’t have access to emergency contraception. But the fact is, we can’t just assume that Bristol shares her mom’s anti-contraception, anti-choice politics (clearly, she doesn’t believe in abstinence until marriage); nor can we assume that she, as a 17-year-old, was blissfully unaware that contraception existed. If we accept that 17-year-olds are resourceful; and if we accept that not only does abstinence-only not work, but that, in fact, contraceptive use is about the same among kids who receive ab-only education and kids who don’t, we can’t blame Bristol Palin’s pregnancy on her mother and her policies. Teenagers make dumb decisions—whether they receive comprehensive sex education or whether their teachers tell them sex before marriage will ruin their lives forever.

And the bottom line is, Bristol Palin made a choice. It may have been (and probably was) a bad choice. But being “pro-choice” means being pro-choice, and that includes choices we don’t agree with. It even includes the choice of a 17-year-old to get married and have a baby if that’s what she wants to do. We can’t say that teenagers should have the right to get abortions without parental consent—something I personally believe—and simultaneously say that Bristol Palin’s decision was somehow beyond her control (or that she should have had an abortion). If pro-choice simply means pro-abortion, then we lose our moral authority to support the right to abortion for those who want one.

On a lighter note: Shades of Harriet Miers (the Bush Supreme Court candidate who was summarily dumped after it became clear she was utterly unqualified for the position)—Sarah Palin has a blog!

RSS icon Comments

1

Blogs are wonderful things.

Especially the pre-scrubbed versions by right-wing America-hating Republicans that are still available on the Net via the Wayback Machine that shows you what they looked like before they removed the objectionable hate-filled stuff.

Petard. Hoist.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 2, 2008 1:54 PM
2

i've read elsewhere that Palin is OK with contraception - what is her actual position on it?

Posted by max solomon | September 2, 2008 1:55 PM
3

That blog...that's a fake. Right? RIGHT?

Posted by omgno! | September 2, 2008 1:56 PM
4

Welcome back! You were missed.

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | September 2, 2008 1:57 PM
5


Results of Palin nomination:

Barack who?

Posted by John Bailo | September 2, 2008 2:01 PM
6
Maybe she wanted a baby. (Hey, it is Alaska)

I know this is a lame joke at the expense of a state which you perceive to consist entirely of bass-ackwards hillbillies, but lets not forget this sort of shit happens everywhere.

Posted by Bigotry is a double edged sword | September 2, 2008 2:02 PM
7

@3 SRYSLY, right?

The howling, airbrushed wolf background is over the top, even for me.

Posted by jackie treehorn | September 2, 2008 2:02 PM
8

??? It's a gift to Obama that McCain picked a (gasp!) conservative??

What do you expect? Ayup "there’s plenty about Palin for liberals to hate" -- big duh. Liberals are already for Obama; McCain not aiming for liberal vote; Palin as conservative brings out McCAin's base and pulls in some swing voters who are more gun lovin' and abortion hatin.'

This just in -- "Gambling Found at Rick's Night Club; Sloggers Shocked, Dismayed."

Posted by PC | September 2, 2008 2:03 PM
9

Just to add a bit to the hypocrisy, I'm pretty sure Sarah's first kid was born about 8 months after she eloped....

Posted by Juan | September 2, 2008 2:03 PM
10

Erica, meet John Bailo, le Trolle du Jour.

Posted by Julie | September 2, 2008 2:04 PM
11

@5: More like, "Sarah who?"

@8: Get a job.

Posted by Ziggity | September 2, 2008 2:10 PM
12

Ah, ECB, you've been missed.

Posted by LurkerJen | September 2, 2008 2:11 PM
13

In fairness to the state of Alaska (I know, I know..) it was a state where abortion was legal pre-Roe vs. Wade. It also is one of the few states where the morning-after pill is available over the counter at pharmacies. I think it was one of the first.

The libertarian streak in AK politics used to veer more toward Choice, personal freedoms (pot was/is semi-legal there) than it seems to now.

Palin is indeed making Alaska a laughing-stock.

Posted by Jason | September 2, 2008 2:12 PM
14

That blog is obviously fake, but I will say the wedding registry is PRICELESS.

Posted by Original Monique | September 2, 2008 2:14 PM
15

Seriously, that blog is fake, right?

"...Russia (also known as the Soviet Union)..."

Tell me again about her foreign policy credentials?

Posted by Justin | September 2, 2008 2:15 PM
16

Erica, I definitely agree with your last few paragraphs. Something was rubbing me the wrong way about everyone saying, if only this kid had had comprehensive sex education! We know that abstinence-only education doesn't work -- but even though comprehensive sex ed is more effective, it's obviously not 100% effective.

The most likely scenario is probably that they knew all about how babies are made and what birth control options were open to them. They either chose not to use birth control thinking that they'd get away with it, or the condom broke (or wasn't used properly).

The thing about focusing on sex ed that bugs me is that it's really about your parents views on sex and your relationship with them. I grew up in a small town (smaller than Wasilla), and as a teenager, didn't have the option of going to a Planned Parenthood or similar clinic. So, my boyfriend and I used condoms, which is all well and good.

BUT, if I felt like I was able to talk to my mom about the fact that I was having sex (without some sort of punitive consequences) or if my mom had talked to me about it, I would have been able to go on the pill, meaning that I would have had a smaller chance of getting pregnant.

I don't think it takes a genius to realize that if Sarah Palin was your mom, talking to her about sex and asking for birth control would not be an attractive option. So you take your chances with condoms, or with "withdrawal" or whatever.

I just think if more parents would recite the mantra "teenagers have sex, my teenager is probably having sex" and act accordingly, less teens would find themselves in this situation.

Posted by Julie | September 2, 2008 2:17 PM
17

Really. Seriously. It is fake, right?

Posted by Callie | September 2, 2008 2:21 PM
18

#6: and, in fairness, Alaska had legal abortion pre-Roe and is one of the only states in the union where the Morning After pill is available over-the-counter without a prescription.

Posted by Jason | September 2, 2008 2:22 PM
19

I just re-read her wiki bio which has been extensively edited since last week. when I read it then there was a mention of the fact tha she *vetoed* a ban on domestic parnter benefits for Alaska State employees, which effectively granted said benefits to domestic partners of all sexes.. Now her bio states that she "supports a non-binding referendum to repeal same-sex benefits", sounds like someone has made a little trip to Panderville for some CYA stick.

Posted by inkweary | September 2, 2008 2:26 PM
20

Great post. Welcome back.

Posted by Trevor | September 2, 2008 2:28 PM
21

PC, you really think we're all idiots, don't you?

i'm pretty sure she means it's a gift to barack obama that mccain picked an untested, unvetted running mate with a laundry list of scandal and corruption, who is on record saying she doesn't know anything about foreign affairs and has no idea what a VP does, who proves the whole "inexperienced" argument the right has been pushing the past few months to be pure opportunistic horseshit, and who forces people to seriously question mccain's judgement, and so on et cetera.

these are characteristics that most people, regardless of political affiliation, find kind of problematic.

Posted by brandon | September 2, 2008 2:29 PM
22

My head is spinning with the near-exhaustive list of why Sarah Palin is such a mess. Not just an enemey of the left, but an incompetent leader no matter what her goals.

What's missing?

Fiscal mismanagement. It's only coming out today how she threw her town into debt after taking over, apparently being to busy firing everyone who crossed her. Then became Governor and ran up the state's credit card even worse. Borrow and spend, borrow and spend. That's the new GOP.

I love hearing about Sarah Palin. Every morsel is delicious. Delectable Sarah! And tomorrow there will be more!

Posted by elenchos | September 2, 2008 2:30 PM
23

she's a republican. stick to the facts, the facts are bad enough.

Posted by hillpagan | September 2, 2008 2:31 PM
24

I really hope the blog is real. I love this line: "Dr. Paul is here! He and I go way back. He always has the most interesting things to say, like about Alaskan independence or the gold standard or how the UN reads everybody's mail. So it's been really good catching up with him (although John gives him the stink eye whenever he's around)."

Posted by Kim | September 2, 2008 2:31 PM
25

Welcome back Erica, did you have your catharsis?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | September 2, 2008 2:35 PM
26

@25: Yes, thanks!

Posted by ECB | September 2, 2008 2:40 PM
27

If Palin believes in abstinence before marriage now, it's a new position, because it's documented that her first child was born seven and a half months after the wedding. I don't think any aspect of this mess should be off the table. The sort of hypocrisy that would demonize a Democratic VP daughter for being pregnant out of wedlock but applauds a Republican VP daughter for the same condition is transparent, and disgusting, to people who pay attention, but it will slide right over the folks who get their news from the crawl on FOX or CNN. Any attention that can be drawn to Palin's own inability to live the life she is trying to force everyone else to live is a good thing, in my opinion.

Posted by Calpete | September 2, 2008 2:40 PM
28

I enjoyed reading this. Its like a summary of "why palin is terrible'

Posted by anthony | September 2, 2008 2:41 PM
29

durrr i heard jesus christ has a cool blog is that reeeel too????

Posted by come on now | September 2, 2008 2:43 PM
30

Erica, I have to echo Julie and voice my appreciation as well for your last couple of paragraphs. I think they are a great example of a well thought out line of reasoning.

Posted by PopTart | September 2, 2008 2:45 PM
31

Barack who?
John McWhat?
I'm voting Sarah Palin and her birth-defective family for EVERYTHING!

Posted by Gurldoggie | September 2, 2008 2:50 PM
32

Note to ECB:

You need to pay your domain bill! Your blog is down for the count!

Also, your unexplained absence was troubling...I was getting worried that Wheelchair Assassins had clubbed you to death on the #8 bus.

Posted by michael strangeways | September 2, 2008 2:51 PM
33

@26 FYI, your domain name has apparently expired. And great post, welcome back.

Posted by Hernandez | September 2, 2008 2:52 PM
34

Yah -- great post! I have enjoyed your synopsis posts for years. Despite all the typing on the Internet, there aren't many good summaries with links on why Palin or Ron Paul or whoever is a bad egg.

Posted by jrrrl | September 2, 2008 2:54 PM
35

The interesting thing about the bridge to nowhere is that Alaska got the money even when the earmark was removed. This shows two things

1. When it was THEIR MONEY free and clear they no longer wanted to build a 350 million dollar bridge with it.

2. If an earmark is bad how is just giving them the money not similarly bad? How does that even work, was it like a gift?

Posted by daniel | September 2, 2008 3:04 PM
36

ECB - you rock! Awesome post. Thanks.

Posted by call me a snot | September 2, 2008 3:05 PM
37

@35

#2: Earmarks are bad because there is no accountability. When Alaskan politicians were responsible for the decision of what to do with the money, they had to find something reasonable to spend it on, as per your point #1.

Note that the road to the bridge to nowhere was still earmarked. So Palin took the money and spent on the useless road, without a second thought as to the utter waste of it all.

Posted by elenchos | September 2, 2008 3:17 PM
38

Erica,

Welcome back, nice of you to join the team (finally).

Posted by Jeff | September 2, 2008 3:19 PM
39

ECB,

Once again, "wacky" must mean less regulation on the internet, freedom of choice for the states, no matter which ones, relaxed immigration, and ending the war on drugs. Your (kinda) boy Obama puffed and did the blow. If caught, he wouldn't have had the chance to be prez. But has he said jack about ending the drug war or decriminalization? Didn't think so. I said it before, you get kooks for every candidate, but Paul is the only one who refuses to censor his supporters because he believes in the first amendment. Although I'm voting for your superfave Obama because the neocons need to be stopped, remember that the bill of rights applies to everyone.

And it's called a jump. Look into it.

Posted by P to the J | September 2, 2008 3:20 PM
40

Yes! I missed you too Erica! And I miss your blog, for the record.

Posted by two shoes | September 2, 2008 3:37 PM
41

This is one of the most intelligent and well thought out posts on Palin I have read so far. Pro Choice is exactly that. Has anyone researched her views on how to take care of children after they are born? So many of these so called pro lifers seem to believe that life begins at conception while blocking quality prenatal care.

Posted by sasha | September 2, 2008 3:46 PM
42

SERIOUSLY.MISSED.YOUR.REPORTING.

Posted by INORIGHT? | September 2, 2008 3:47 PM
43

'Bristol Palin made a choice'? What about her boyfriend? Knowing men, very likely he was the one choosing to have sex without birth control. It's really unfair to focus exclusively on the women.

Posted by kjg kjg | September 2, 2008 3:55 PM
44

The blog says it's fake, about half way down the page in the right hand column:

"This site is a work of satire and is not affiliated with Sarah Palin in any way."

So, it's probably fake.

Posted by atwork | September 2, 2008 4:04 PM
45

Missed you, ECB. I'll be referring all of my swing-voter friends to this post.

Posted by MK | September 2, 2008 4:08 PM
46

She claims to be a fan of BSG - AND SHE CAN'T FREAKING SPELL "CYLON" CORRECTLY?!?

Well, she's totally lost MY vote now.

Posted by COMTE | September 2, 2008 4:20 PM
47

The blog is fake, but Palindromes the movie appears to be real. Perhaps the source of the blog's name?

Posted by Lee | September 2, 2008 4:23 PM
48

Palin also was interested in getting books banned when she was mayor, and threatened to have the librarian fired for not cooperating.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

Posted by booji boy | September 2, 2008 4:41 PM
49

I wish I could be as sure as you that Palin's nomination is good news for Democrats. I am afraid my worst nightmare is going to come true with a McCain/Palin victory.

Posted by elswinger | September 2, 2008 4:58 PM
50

Yeah, I had comprehensive sex education and still got knocked up at 19. It happens.

Shocking thing I just found out yesterday: the Republican platform (which is not necessarily the exact same as McCain or Palin's views) states that abortion should be illegal in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. That includes if the mother's LIFE is in danger! I had no idea the wingnuts would prefer that a woman DIE rather than preform a termination. That is absolutely insane!

Imagine that you are in your late second trimester. You get a severe case of pre-eclampsia and you will die if your doctor does not terminate the pregnancy. If I am understanding the Republican platform correctly, your doctor should allow you to die. Am I missing something?

Posted by Baby baby | September 2, 2008 5:04 PM
51

Erica, Dear, Welcome back. I truly do like your posts - and I really love this post.

The only thing I would add is that it's not so much the lack of legitimate sex ed that worries me - kids are kids, and my family's history is replete with unplanned pregnancies. Shit happened, life went on.

What worries me is the inclusion of the kind of "sex ed" that inadvertently leads teens to believe that unprotected anal sex is a good idea, because it keeps you "chaste" and "saves you for marriage".

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | September 2, 2008 5:21 PM
52

While Sarah Palin opposes comprehensive sex ed, that is the form of sex ed taught in Alaska. I'm failing to see any "hypocrisies" in the whole string of events here. Stupidity? Yes.

According the to the pro-life movement, Palin is doing exactly what she should do. The kids are marrying and raising the child. Personal beliefs aside, this isn't helping you guys at all. Just saying.

Posted by Wait a Sec | September 2, 2008 5:30 PM
53

Actually you made one small mistake, Palin is so rabidly against abortion that she has stated that it should not be allowed in any cases, even if it is the only way to save the woman's life.

Posted by Sad Comment | September 2, 2008 6:30 PM
54

How come Bristol Palin hasn't gotten married yet? Are her parents set on making sure their grandchild is a traditional right-wing bastard?

Posted by Kaypro | September 2, 2008 6:49 PM
55

at least the "no abortion even in cases of rape or incest" stance is morally consistent. the old saw that gave exception to those things was logically flawed: if a fetus is an innocent life, it's an innocent life, regardless of how horrifically it got conceived. the other stance reveals the "punish her for sex, but not for forced sex" moral stance behind it. at least this stance takes the "innocent life" concept to its logical conclusion.

but the life of the mother being less important than the fetus? that's fuckin' primeval. there's no defending that one.

Posted by ellarosa | September 2, 2008 7:41 PM
56

@53, no she hasn't. She makes an exception for cases where failure to abort would cause the mother's death. That still puts her far to the right of most Americans, something like 80% of whom support the right to abort in cases of rape or incest.

Posted by Fnarf | September 2, 2008 8:43 PM
57

Same sex sexual relations are the only way to prevent teen pregnancy.

Posted by elswinger | September 2, 2008 9:02 PM
58

I agree that abstinence only programs in schools are the worse programs ever. But why is it up to the schools and the government to teach our children about sex anyways? Im sure as hell not going to leave that up to them. Im sorry that so many americans are embarrassed and then want to complain how the government wants to do it. I say we take back our children and we take back how we chose to raise them. I am going to tell my children how it REALLY is. I am going to give them there options and let them know that I am there for them and that there doctors are there for them. I am not for sex before marriage but I am for informing our kids and if that means condoms and birth control then there we go! I wont be a grandma so early!

Posted by inga | September 3, 2008 10:20 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.