Palin’s Family Is Absolutely Fair Game – Really!

The new revelation that Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin’s daughter, is pregnant has rekindled an old debate: should families of nominees be off-limits? I have always maintained that families, beliefs and secrets of all policy makers are fair game. Shocked? Don’t be. The alternative would be silly.

We elect policy makers who set the course of our civic lives. In return, we should expect them to propagate initiatives that they, themselves, adhere to and respect. We should not, under any circumstances, accept the idea of do as I say and not as I do.

Bill Clinton’s difficulty in comprehending what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is notwithstanding, his sexual conduct while President was absolutely fair game. Democrats attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that the President’s sexual conduct had nothing to do with (and did not affect) conducting the business of the people. Wrong! Being the leader of the free world, the trust it requires and the responsibilities it carries have EVERYTHING to do with conducting the business of the people. He had sex with someone other than his wife at the Oval Office. I don’t particularly care about the infidelity part. I do, however, care that it happened while he was President, and that he lied about it.

Feel free to not mention to me that President Bush possibly also lied. This post is about family matters. The premise of the Iraq war is irrelevant here.

Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter is absolutely fair game. He should not support a constitutional amendment banning gay/lesbian marriage if his own family includes a lesbian.

Accordingly, Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter is absolutely fair game. Many in her own Republican party would consider this a failure of parenthood, strong family or religion. All efforts by the Palins and the campaign to positively spin this unfortunate occurrence by saying that they are very proud of Bristol’s decision to keep the baby and to marry the young man are meaningless. They have no choice in the matter. Aborting the baby would be considered sinful. Not marrying the father of the baby would make Bristol an unwed, underage, single Mom. Either way, Palin would not have earned a spot on the Republican ticket.

And now for the kicker. Remember when Britney Spears’ younger sister, Jamie Lynn, became pregnant at 16? I remember how Conservative media personalities such as Limbaugh and O’Reilly had a field day with that. O’Reilly said about Jamie Lynn “. . . the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her . . .”

Well, that was then, and it was about a God-less liberal entertainer brat. Sarah Palin’s situation is completely different. Right? Reacting to a Cynthia Tucker column in Atlanta Journal-Constitution, O’Reilly explained why Sarah Palin is not to blame:

Now, the latest thing is that people like me don’t condemn Palin’s family but we condemn other people who, uh, gave birth out of wedlock. I’ve never condemned anybody who gave birth out of wedlock. Ever in my life. I don’t make those kinds of determinations. What I do say and, this nut Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes a deal out of this, I said that Britney Spears and what’s her sister’s name who’s pregnant, their parents were irresponsible – Jamie Lee – because they were running around unsupervised. Yeah, I said that and I believe it. It has nothing to do with the Palin situation, okay? So, I mean, it just, it really, it makes me angry. → source

Oh, but it has everything to do with the Sarah Palin situation, Mr. O’Reilly. On the one hand, Jamie Lynn’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 16 was a strong indication of failed or absent parenthood. On the other hand, Bristol Palin’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 17 is a private family matter for the Palins only. It doesn’t make sense, does it?

I only have one thing to say about that: WE’LL DO IT LIVE!

Watch this video if you don’t know that reference.  

And here’s a video of Bill Clinton’s difficulty with the word ‘is’.