The New York Times found three ways to mention, above-the-fold on A1 today, that McCain's running-mate's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.
Per the Times, 17-year-old Bristol Palin's pregnancy: is one of "a series of disclosures" that "called into question how thoroughly Mr. McCain" vetted his running-mate; "presents an unwanted distraction for Mr. McCain's campaign;" and helped launch "The Mommy Wars; Special Campaign Edition" ("a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for [Palin] to take on the vice presidency; and is she right to try.")
Anything else? Oh, yes. On A19 readers learn that "Palin Daughter's Pregnancy Interrupts G.O.P. Convention Script." (Not to mention, I imagine, interrupting "Palin Daughter's" own life "script" somewhat...)
But back to What it Means For People Who Are Not Bristol Palin!
The Washington Post: "Hurricane Isn't The Only Jolt In Convention. Palin's Daughter, 17, is Pregnant."
The media's handling of this "jolt" was a topic of great debate among the talking heads on MSNBC this morning.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I just noticed that three articles on the front page of the New York Times involve Sarah Palin's 17-year-old pregnant daughter.JOE SCARBOROUGH: They like the story!
BRZEZINSKI: They like the story a lot...
MIKE BARNICLE: If big east coast papers and big west coast papers continue to do that, are they going to win in a landslide, McCain and Palin? They'll so alienate every parent in the country who has had a moment...
PAT BUCHANAN: If the media go after this still, I'll tell you, they are solidifying the Republican base and deepening it. They are just so stupid! I cannot believe the way the media's handled this...
Yet, big coastal newspapers are hardly alone in their A1 treatment ("Pregnancy steals spotlight," according to the front page of the Anchorage Daily News) or even in taking the cringe-making storm-pun route (didn't we warn you about this?) For example:
"Two storms-- one, a hurricane, the other a Palin family revelation-- steal the focus on the convention's first day," per the front page of the print edition of the (Minneapolis) Star Tribune.
People are not attacking Palin's daughter, they are rightly pointing out the hypocrisy of a Republican establishment that has advanced the politics of character assassination and undermined the Freedom of Religion in pursuit of power. The internet should be replete with apologies from Republicans for supporting right-wing media and party wackos who bludgeon and litmus test fellow Americans with some Biblical passages when politically expedient, while not doing so with other passages like those on fidelity, fornication, shell fish, swine, and indentured servitude. Christian Fundamentalists in the Republican Party and Media that want to impose their particular religious interpretations on others can't have it both ways:
Either, a pregnancy is a personal matter SEPARATE from government (as most open minded freedom loving Americans argue), or it isn't.
Christian Fundamentalists want to impose non-medical/religious-only beliefs on people outside of their church in a nation where your pledge of allegiance means you swear not to do that. By advocating the enforcement of her spirituality into law, Palin invited us to do something we shouldn't have to: to examine the consequences of the imposition of Palin's religious beliefs on those of us who don't share them. Hypocrites deserve worse than being put in front of a mirror that reflects the "family values"/"I'm more Christian than you" that were used to distract the nation from a rational and substantiated discussion on issues that are most deserving of our attention.
Christ was the first to advocate a separation of church and state when he declared "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21, see also John 18:36). Don't you dare use him to hide your lack of integrity, self-reflection, and moral courage. Not even someone who Christian Fundamentalists believe is fit to run the country and pick Supreme Court justices; who embodies their "Christian Values"; is able to keep her adolescent daughter abstinent. If you don't want people to look at how well the politics that puts "abstinence-only education" ahead of adolescent welfare worked out for your daughter, do us all a favor, mind your own business and remember your oath to uphold the Constitution means real American patriots would sooner die than allow their or anyone else's religious-only beliefs to be forced onto others.
I gave Adolf, Stalin and Mao unconditional love.
The NY Times goes after this story with a vengeance and this is news? Dog bites man if you ask me. The vengeance that the media is going after this story will serve three purposes, all unintentional. It will unmask the media as the blatantly partisan Obama loving sycophants that they are. It will put the focus back on the “culture wars”, a conservative strong point. It will reinforce that people like Palin practices what they preach, much to the chagrin of the lefties that are busy running around the web implementing the politics of destruction on this family. This baby could just as easily wound up in the medical waste bin at an abortion mill (just as Obama said his daughters “mistakes” would), but Palin, her family, and her daughter will embrace this child just as they should.
So thank you liberal media, this is just the shot in the arm McCain needs right now.
And Edwin, you are completely 100% wrong, people are attacking Palins daughter. You dont have to go further than Kos or Wonkette to see that.
The Times has gone after this story with a bit too much zeal, and CNN was as well when I tuned in yesterday. It seems somewhat explainable though, as its a complex story involving a cover-up emerging just after she was named as the VP candidate. Nothing much is known about Palin, and this story emerges to fill the void; it seems pretty predictable that the media would run away with it. It's a shame that her daughter is being subjected to this treatment, but you have to wonder what Palin expected to happen, and why she would expose her daughter to this kind of scrutiny.
I'm not sure I agree that it gives McCain much of a shot in the arm. I do agree that it refuels the culture war, and I have my suspicions that McCain made the pick with that in mind, and it will certainly shore up votes in certain camps. It seems to me a pretty disastrous example of his judgment, though. If Palin falters at any point, be it on the trail or during the debate, it will cement that this was a vanity pick with little substance.
It seems pretty predictable that the media would run away with it.
Predictable it was, after all I remember three front page stories when Gore III was busted for dope or with Edwards baby ..... oh wait ..... that didn’t go down like this, did it?
It's a shame that her daughter is being subjected to this treatment, but you have to wonder what Palin expected to happen, and why she would expose her daughter to this kind of scrutiny.
She’s not subjecting her daughter to this, that argument is a kin to saying that a raped woman “asked for it”, the media is out with the long knives and they want blood.
I agree that the media's motives in pursuing this are less than pristine, but I still don't think you can draw direct parallels to Gore's son or Edwards' affair. Gore III's antics were typical college-boy misdemeanors, Edwards's, the unfortunate misstep of a man no longer in the spotlight. Of the three stories this piece highlights, I'd say two are of value to readers: the question of exactly how much of this was known by McCain, and how the apparent haste of this decision reflects upon his judgment; and the question of whether a mother of young children (and grand-children) is up to the task of being VP. Its a shame that the investigation of these two questions must center around the vulture-like behaviors of lascivious innuendo and character smear.