In fairness, I think he stayed out of public financing because he unexpectedly had umpteen zillion dollars.
But you’re right.
I disagree. Hypocrisy is espousing one belief and practicing another. Palin’s daughter didn’t have an abortion; Palin (presumably) seeks legislation denying anyone the right to an abortion. That’s not hypocritical. You’ve tried to turn it into hypocrisy by saying that Palin asks the public to accept her daughter’s “choice,” as though abortion is also a choice she would have asked acceptance for. But it’s not, and no hypocrisy is in play here.
What is difficult to reconcile, however, is that the same warmth and acceptance of “life happening” to Sarah Palin’s family was not extended to Lynne Spears’ family. A braver soul than my might call this a word that starts with H.
I assume the “choice” referenced is the latter, since the former shouldn’t be referred to by a pro-life person as a choice at all. That would be hypocritical.
I think this is a time when loaded language is getting in the way of communication. “Keeping the baby” and “made a choice” and “privacy” are all words/phrases that are loaded within the political framework. Pro-abortion rights people read them and say, “So she got to make a choice about abortion but she wants to deny me that choice. Hypocrisy!” but anti-abortion people read them and say, “She’s going to keep the child to raise and should be left alone to raise it. There’s no hypocrisy here.”
Perhaps the Palin position would be firmer if only there were a Constitutional right to privacy. Hmm. 
I have no interest in Palin’s family. I would be happy to never talk about them again. But I want her out of mine. She does not have the right to decide what my children may read and whether they should be able to make decisions about the size of their family. If she steps over the bounds ,we will too.
Never mind.
Bricker I know that those first threads are now gone, but no the first threads about her were not relating to her family or to judgments about her family. They were about her being a lightweight in any skill set needed to take over the Presidency on a moment’s notice and about her far right belief set. That and fact checking some of her claims only to find that the truth had not been well served. The next set were how would this effect the horse race aspects. (People like me prematurely declaring that this now really did fork McCain.) Then there was one that linked to the speculation about her not being Trig’s mother as the alternative was that she was an unbelievably big idiot with amazingly reckless judgment. That and several other items that required separate leaps of accepting bizarreness with such huge willing suspensions of disbelief that the single bizarre explanation of a fake pregnancy seemed more likely. Or less unlikely. Occam’s razor y’know. Those speculations were NOT in the MSM. From there PALIN threw her daughter onto the train tracks and called attention to her at the height of the public’s hunger for any information about who Palin is at all. Another item of questionable judgment.
Posters here have, for the most part, been amazingly restrained, and the numbers of sources taking cheap shots is amazingly small given the temptation. The worst I’ve heard was from Leno I think. Hardly the Democratic media machine.
Think if you will how the masses would be attacking if it wasn’t for Obama’s call for restraint, and his wisely pointing out how his mother was a single mother at 18 and how she had been one of his heros?
The nature of the debate is improved by some nonzero amount. To expect the nasty side to totally disappear in one cycle - or ever - would be silly. Surely you are not so naive?
So you are doing that: you are judging Obama’s campaign by the dialogue on this message board.
I believe you are in error. No such debunking has taken place. We’ve got a thread specifically about whether the door’s been shut on that rumor. Feel free to join in and debunk away, but it hasn’t happened yet.
No, that was present from the very beginning in the Lost Weekend’s ‘babygate’ thread. No shift was necessary. I believe DSeid made that argument just a few posts in.
I believe you misspelled “how poor a mother she is because she revealed her teen daughter’s pregnancy, rather than revealing her own medical records, in order to quash the ‘babygate’ rumors.”
You know what? This isn’t the only place online that a lot of us hang out anymore. And the lefty blogosphere was already doing a bang-up job on creationism, Troopergate, foreign policy experience, her penchant for lobbying for porky earmarks, and all the rest of it.
Besides, very little of that was debatable. It takes two sides to make a debate, and with most of this stuff, as Tevye said, “There is no ‘other hand.’” It’s hardly worth debating people who’d take the contrary position on these issues.
Whatever. It’s not the stuff I’d first (or second, or third) bring up if someone asked me what my thoughts were about Palin. But it was fun to debate it. It wasn’t a smear - hell, it would have exonerated her, if true - so there didn’t seem to be any harm in it. It was simply fun.
Don’t be such a stuffed shirt, OK?
She is asking us to applaud Bristol’s choice, and her choice too. And I do. It was her choice, it was well thought out I’m sure, and no one should even have an opinion about it.
But we don’t know if Bristol actually had a choice about keeping the baby, since her having an abortion would destroy her mother’s career. She might well have chosen the same way if she did, but one wonders. But that is private also.
The hypocrisy comes not from them choosing to have the babies, since they do indeed encourage everyone to do likewise. It comes from extolling the process of choice while trying to deny it to others. I have not heard anyone, here at least, say they made the wrong choices about having the children. What do you think the reaction would be on the Republican side if the daughter of candidate X chose to have an abortion? Do you think it would be kept private? Do you think they would support the process of choice? I know you are opposed to abortion, but do you think others who are ardently opposed would offer privacy to the daughter?
He’s a Presidential candidate, not a preacher. His job, should he be elected, will be to run the country, not dictate social mores. Sorry, but I, for one, don’t live my life based on the “examples” of politicians, regardless of affiliation. Nor do I feel the need to.
…
Let’s see…Palin’s family problems hit the news, Obama (and Biden) speak out against bringing them up as a campaign issue, but some people (including a proportion of those on the Dope finding fault with Palin’s VP candidacy), discuss them anyway.
So because Bricker perceives a failure of Obama to bring about a radical transformation of American politics “down the line” (read: immediately), he just can’t vote for the guy.
This would be hard to swallow coming from from a newly registered 18-year-old who just emerged from a convent. We would have to be naive in the extreme to buy such an explanation from a supposedly savvy lawyer.
Vote for whoever you want, but spare us the “you made me do it” rationale.
Why on earth should I respond to a toddler whine for attention?
Maybe Mr. Bricker could comment on Palin’s God’s war statement in relation to his definition of looney left.
*"Our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” Palin says. “There is a plan and that is God’s plan.” *
Somehow I haven’t seen anything from the left that pegs the looney meter as far into the red as her statement does. And she might one day become the CIC.
(HINT: The answer “that stuff wasn’t in the legitimate media” won’t do. The legitimate media have most certainly reported on the fact that these rumors exist – and Bricker is on record as saying that counts as “media coverage”.)
Is the “New Thread” button broken on your SDMB?
Meh. If you look at the historical record by the same standard (i.e. only displays of assholery count), neither did Jesus.
Ah. So it’s Obama’s fault for not being able to violate one of the fundamental laws of physics, and enable an event in November 2008 to influence other events in August-September 2008. Gotcha.
That’s the problem with you folks in the reality-based community! While you’re dealing with your reality, we’ll be busy creating new realities, ones where causality isn’t constrained by legalistic trivialities such as the unidirectionality of time. And while you’re catching up and dealing with that reality, we’ll be creating even newer realities…
Great point, I’ve been wondering about this also.
I’m not sure. The person denouncing abortion isn’t now getting one, however, asking the public to accept a decision her child has made and seeking to legislate to deny that choice to others is…wrong. If the last part isn’t hypocrisy what is it?