Let me say that I while I am not a fan of Palin, I dont think she's the Devil. In fact, I think once the (media) feeding frenzy is over, no one else (read: Democrats, I mean) really does either. My level of respect for someone who can admit the same about Obama while disagreeing with him is ratcheted up quite a few notches.
No. What is being played upon at this point is basic emotion - because it sells. And it works on even the most erudite. Because I have to admit, while I could care less about what happens in the Palin household, and while I have nothing but the utmost sympathy for parents whose teenage daughter comes home knocked up: there is something visceral about my reaction to Palin's knocked up daughter - and it has nothing to do with Palin herself.
It has everything to do with a ingrained sense of outrage over the idea of republican selective forgiveness: that when John Edwards (lets just insert "Democrat" here), sleeps with a woman who isnt his wife (read: adulterer), he's the Democratic Demon Child - but when Palin's daughter turns up knocked up (read: fornicator - potential abortion candidate (that part being speculative at this point seeing as how mommy/daddy probably nixed that option after the public became aware)), we should approach her family with love and understanding, and......gasp...forgiveness!
Shouldn't we approach all of the potential candidates that way, with that same tender understanding?
Yes. I feel betrayed. I feel betrayed that the self-portrayed "Moral Party" are the same people who would rip into Jamie Lynn Spears for daring to write a "How to Mother" book, and tear her to pieces over coffee, deem her an unfit mother - or if anything, definitely unfit to lead/teach other mothers - all because of having a knocked up teenager ---- and these same people are suddenly placing Palin on a pedastal of suffering parenthood, and asking for a tender approach to her home and her feelings?
Give me a break. She gave up privacy from media intrustion and judgment when she took the center stage. I am constantly baffled by the candidates' tiptoe approach to her - as if she might crack and break if we get "too personal." THIS is going to be our VP? Someone whose tender lady feelings we're even afraid to hurt?
I would have rathered Hillary Clinton, and I seriously disliked her, but at least I did not think she was a scared little puppy. The gloves are off, Palin. Welcome to the Big Leagues.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
5 comments:
Maybe I'm not a real Republican, but I think anyone who fornicates is wrong. Anyone who is and adulterer is wrong. I do believe there is a fundamental difference in Sarah Palin's daughter committing fornication and John Edwards committing adultery. John Edwards himself committed adultery. Sarah Palin's daughter committed fornication. Palin can't control her daughter at all times. I have a daughter and I can't control her at all times. I've attempted to train her, but I can't control her. Therefore, I see a fundamental difference in the Edwards/Palin discussion.
My morals will not allow me to overlook immorality in anyone. The Republican party has had several incidents over the last several years, because they have an R after their names doesn't make it right.
As to Sarah Palin's daughter, Cheslie Clinton, the Bush Twins, or any other political figures Children...They are humans and they make dumb decisions. I don't judge the parents by their adult children.
I actually agree with your comment Anonymous (and it appears you agree with mine) from a basic standpoint. I do not know you so I am not at all making any judgments about your political affiliations and I appreciate that your morality isnt selective! This post is "generally speaking," so I appreciate your insight.
The only separation I have with your statement it is that 17 years old isnt "adult" in my book. Parents are responsible for what happens when the child lives under their roof.
(I also know that children do bad things, and parents often have no control over their actions in THAT sense. Still, the biblical principle below applies in that it is very hard for someone to toot the horn (loudly) when their own house is clearly not in order. We all agree with an upright home, but if there are flaws in my own home, wisdom may dictate that thought I agree with uprightness in the home, and stand for it, I not be the forefront spokesperson and leading champion in the nation on "the home.")
See 1 Timothy 3:1-5.
And before you say that that scripture block applies only to Bishops, I will agree with you generally. (However, I believe its edict is applicable to all homes.) THAT is exactly my point. Palin isnt a Bishop - probably isnt even saved. Neither is Edwards.
So why are we comparing their morality, as though one holds a higher ground?
If we were going to compare the morality of the parties - lets just do that on its face. But then we have to ask ourselves - whose morality?
I consider it "moral" to take care of the poor.
I consider it "moral" to enact/fund social programs (even public aid) to stem the tide of poverty/homelessness/drug use, etc.
I consider it "moral" for the government to recognize that racism/discrimination is a systemic problem in this country and to openly work to combat it (homosexuality is excepted from this).
I think one major difference in "conservatives" and "liberals" (neither one is meant to be an insult-just descriptive) is the role of government. I consider it moral to take care of the poor...but that's not the government's job. I consider it moral to fight poverty, homelessness, and drug use...but, with the exception of enforcing the laws against drug use, its not the government's job. I believe that racism and discrimination is wrong...but its not the government's job to make it end.
I believe it's the job of the people to give to charities, help the poor, educate their children about drug use, fight racism, etc. I the government does not need to be involved in every phase of our lives (See communism/socialism).
I believe that people should work to change the issues. My father grew up in what many would consider to be less than idea situations. He has worked hard to change that. Others have done the same. If the government changes your situation for you not much has changed, because you're still the same. People need to change before change will come.
Enjoy the "debate."
Hmm. No, I understand your viewpoint, even if I dont fully agree with it. Its the whole "the government shouldnt stick its nosewhere it doesnt belong" kind of southern states rights / anti-governmental oversight vantage point.
Here's the thing: at some level, I agree with this view - but you must understand the crux of the opposing viewpoint (at least from my vantage point):
Consider our storied American history. Consider slavery in particular. It took a FEDERAL GOVERNMENTAL intervention to break slavery (lets just accept this without getting into too many specific details regarding the reasons behind the emancipation).
It took a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT intervention to break the subsequent Jim Crow laws/lynching and basic segragation of blacks from society.
It took a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT intervention to grant women rights (all of them: the right to vote, the right to own property, the right NOT to be beaten like a child by your husband, the right NOT to be considered the property OF your husband).
It took a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to institute Anti-Segregation measures / Affirmative Action in order to combat the sheer absence of African-Americans in higher education ...or education period.
These examples are not the point. The POINT I am making is that our country has an entire history that shows when its citizens are "left to their own" decision making process - RIGHT does not triumph over WRONG.
WRONG triumphs over right - every time, unless Big Brother is there twisting the arm, and making everyone play nice together in the sandbox.
So no. I dont fail to understand your argument - I just think that the required belief in the broad altruism of others is incredibly naive and myopic - a myopia, I might add, that no minority or (non-white) woman can afford.
A nagging worry I have in the back of my head (a strong belief in some cases), is that this view of yours manifested in some people is neither naive, nor myopic. THAT scares me. THAT scares me because what it means to me is that the person who holds these beleifs really feels that the "free will" of man should rule the day, and that society and the government should let "the chips fall where they may," even if it means that people are harmed according to a racial, ethnic or gender pattern.
....and we all know from history (and the Bible) that the "free will" of man is often cruel, selfish, and willing to hurt others. WE also know that there is a basic "Sin Problem" that the world is living with on a daily basis. That being the case, the whole "let society make its own moral decisions and somehow it will make the right decision" view is at base an "Only the Strong Survive" viewpoint, and it fails to acknowledge the great weight of evidence of the moral crimes of this country.
I'm all for less governmental oversight of my money. But not at the cost of my civil freedoms, enjoyment of life (which includes the right not to be discriminated against in any way) and personal safety.
"WRONG triumphs over right - every time, unless Big Brother is there twisting the arm, and making everyone play nice together in the sandbox."
Since desegregation, what was the last thing the Federal Government did right, on a social level? And actually I believe that wrong triumphs over right with the FED's quite often.
If "Big Brother" is twisting everyones arm to do right then we're all in pretty bad shape.
Once again, I enjoy the debate. Its nice to have a civil debate with someone with either party getting mad or out of hand.
Post a Comment