Seventeen
I'm just thinking out loud here, so forgive me if I ramble.
Today's been pretty quiet and I've been catching up on my online reading. Two posts caught my attention and made me wonder what effect the behavior of a couple of 17-year-olds might have on this election.
At RealClearPolitics, Linda Chavez has an article called The Unexamined Life, in which she wonders why the behavior of 17-year-old Bristol Palin is of such interest to the media when the behavior of (then) 17-year-old Barack Obama is not. Meanwhile, Amy Alkon has a post up that questions the wisdom of the decision for Bristol to have her baby and whether that decision should be hers or her parents. She links to a William Saletan piece at Slate that describes Bristol as a "maturing minor" who is, in essence "subjugated" because by law, she doesn't have the same rights as adults.
Now, a reasonable person might ask, why are either of these things important? One happened 30 years ago and the other is a personal matter that should be no one's business but the family's. But here's the thing...
One of these things (Obama's admitted drug use as a teenager) is not, and as far as I know, never has been talked about or explored by anyone in the press. At least, not beyond a casual mention. On the other hand, the comings and goings of Bristol Palin's vagina are front page news. Why is one item worthy of a full-court-press and the other a big fat ho-hum?
Saletan points out that Sarah Palin has been very active in trying to enact a Parental Notification law in Alaska that would have required Bristol to receive her parent's permission to terminate the baby. This, of course, is bad because, in Saletan's view, "maturing minors" should be capable of making that decision for themselves, along with eating junk food, going to tanning salons and staying out past 10PM. Something tells me that Saletan would be more than comfortable with Obama - at 17 - deciding just how much pot, booze or blow he should indulge in. After all, look how well he turned out.
So, should the behavior of either of these 17-year-olds matter in the coming election? For me, not at all. Sarah Palin's pro-life philosophy is a matter of record, as are all of her actions as Governor of Alaska. If Parental Notification laws make you squishy, so be it. Obama's admitted drug use doesn't bother me, but it would be nice if it mattered to the press at least as much as George W. Bush's alleged drug use did back in 2000.
However, I find Obama's method of dealing with his mom's concern about his drug use very interesting:
"I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand and told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid. It was usually an effective tactic, another of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves."
Somehow I don't think that would work with Bristol's mom.
9 Comments:
Liberals oppose Parental Notification laws, since they oppose practically anything that might hinder someone in obtaining an abortion. This stance is highly unpopular in general, which is why you almost never hear any Democrats talk about it during a general election.
I'm surprised that John McCain's first wife is not brought up as an issue. The leader of the "family values" party that started dating a 23-year-old when he was a married 41-year-old. She says she's not bitter ... she doesn't think it was her disfiguring accident that made him leave the marriage. Just a forty-year-old that still wanted to be 25. She still supports his presidency. But his actions strike me as creepy.
The first wife has been brought up regularly, and since almost everything politically important he's done has been since then, everyone understands it's not that significant. Furthermore, John McCain has talked about more than once (a lot more than Obama talks about his former cocaine use)--at the Saddleback Forum just a few weeks ago, he admitted his greatest moral failing was what happened with his first marriage.
Why is one item worthy of a full-court-press and the other a big fat ho-hum?
(a) Because one was 30 years ago and the other was less than 30 days ago.
(b) Because one admitted it upon becoming a public figure and the other (GWB) did not, making it a huge prize to the news organization that could prove GWB a liar.
(c) Because one is right there on the news talk shows this week and every week, including Bill O'Reilly, while the other's mom gives the press nothing else to talk about by refusing to be interviewed.
(d) It's not the activity, it's the hypocrisy and the irony. Palin advocates abstinence-only education and cut funding for teen mothers whose parents aren't quite so supportive. When Obama advocates stricter penalties for teens caught using drugs, his acts as a 17 year old will be similarly relevant.
(e) All of the above.
Take yer pick.
QG, at least look up the smears and find out they have been discredited. You don't have to believe everything that fits your narrative. Deal with a little cognitive dissonance. Earlier today saw a conservative lady interviewed. When shown the quote from Palin that it is fine for kids to be taught about condoms, her jaw dropped. No politician perfectly fits your ideal of evil or good.
QG - Sarah Palin did not cut funding for teen mothers. See here:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-did-not-slash-funds-for-teen-mothers/
VG, you're right. Choice (d) would be marked incorrect.
Anon, that's precisely why I'm here. If I wanted one side and only one side of any story, there are plenty of blogs and other sources that will give me that. I love hearing things that disprove my assumptions, because then I'm actually learning something.
Re Palin, I've mentioned several times that I think her daughter's pregnancy is utterly irrelevant. I was focused on the issue of trying to explain why it's being discussed in a slightly more nuanced way than "left wing media bad!" And indeed, your own example supports my choice (c). How ridiculous is it that we've got to read tea leaves to know what a major party VP candidate's views are on issues we care about?
"How ridiculous is it that we've got to read tea leaves to know what a major party VP candidate's views are on issues we care about?"
It's a darn sight better than having to read tea leaves to know what a major party's presidential candidate's views are.
Well, yes. Luckily we don't have that problem.
Post a Comment
<< Home