Second!

Does this mean that Bristol did not birth the Mongoloid, as the fringe lefty bloggers had previously insisted?

I'm a solid democratic party voter, and I don't understand why this is an issue?

I'm the father.

who's the baby daddy?

Not that it's an issue or anything, but this is great stuff for the party that hypocritically beats everyone over the head with its morals and is repeatedly embarrassed by sex scandals

The vetting wasn't screwed up. McCain knew about this. This is the Times demonstrating that they can't be taken seriously anymore.

If only the media was as interested in Rezko, Ayers, Wright, etc. as they are in a 17 year old. This coverage smacks of sexism and desperation.

8 - would you like some cheese with that whine?

This doesn't mean that Bristol Palin did not have the downs syndrome baby. This just suggests that she's more promiscuous than anybody could have imagined.

Or if that's not true, then it means she was sneaking sex in the house while she was supposed to be bed ridden with mono, and it means that her Sarah Palin is stupid enough to give a speech, get on a plane, layover in Seattle, and then drive 45 minutes to a small town hospital after her water broke. She's a 44 year old woman giving birth to special needs child 1 month early! What a retard.

Ladies and gentlemen, abstinence-only education!

"The vetting wasn't screwed up. McCain knew about this."

LOL. It looks like we have a McCain insider commenting.

"If only the media was as interested in Rezko, Ayers, Wright, etc."

2xLOL. Because those are the real issues...

Abstinence only education rocks.

Just think of all of the abortions we could prevent with a little birth control for everyone.

Josh Marshall:

A lot of attention is being given to Gov. Palin's daughter's situation. The much bigger deal is the expanding trooper-gate investigation, the fact that Palin lied in her Friday speech about her purported opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere, her apparent former membership in the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, and more. Individually, you can come to your own judgment about how consequential these stories are. What they show pretty clearly now -- in addition to the news that the McCain campaign is only now sending in a vetting team -- is that John McCain didn't do any serious vetting of Palin before he invited her to join his ticket and, he hopes, become Vice President of the United States.

Fundamentally, of course, this is about John McCain. And the real issue here is what this slapdash decision says about his judgment.

8:

Resko - comprehensively covered
Ayers - comprehensively covered
Wright - comprenhensively covered

Let's see if the hastily chosen, unvetted Harriet Miers can survive any scrutiny. Maybe a day or two of press? Is that fair?

totally sad and predictable how the left wing media is furiously trying to tear Palin apart by every means possible, including going after her children. They are embarrassed that they were caught flat-flooted by this nomination and are desperate to define this woman in any negative light that will stick, all while insisting that her historic nomination is not really historic because she does not toe the line on left wing orthodoxy.

Even if the Governor isn't covering for her daughter's pregnancy, she's likely covering up someone's--there is no way she was actually pregnant in those pics, especially seeing how big she was when she was pregnant with her other kids. Maybe her older son knocked up his girlfriend, and that's why he joined the Army.

I would hope that after this, Palin would change her stance on abstinence-only education. In fact, after going through the experience of having a baby with Down's Syndrome and watching a teenager have a baby, she MIGHT come to an understanding of why abortion should be an available option to others, especially considering that many don't have the same resources as she does.

But of course, that would mean admitting that she doesn't know what's best for every other person in the country based on her personal relationship with jesus.

This site didn't take too long to go up:

http://www.vpilf.com/

10 - good point.

I think it's safe to criticize and second-guess decisions like what to do when pregnent when no competent expert in the field would advise the person to do it in the first place.

This is also someone who was flying routinely in pressurized aircraft while (supposedly) pregnent.

17 - Actually, her "historic nomination" is not historic because its not historic. It happened before in 1984. 24 years ago.

If McCain/Palin win, that will be historic. But the nomination itself, not so much.

Palin & family = White trash

White trash to VP!

Sartorial question: Hair plugs or toupee? I really want to project that sophisticated New Jersey used-car salesman look.

"'If only the media was as interested in Rezko, Ayers, Wright, etc.'

2xLOL. Because those are the real issues..."

Uh...they are as much of a real issue as the pregnancy of the daughter of the VP candidate.

17 - are you auditioning for FOX "News" with that post?

17: i think we all agree that the nomination is pretty historic... historically disastrous!

*rimshot*

17, are you kidding me? this is the same media that spent days discussing obama's patriotism in light of whether he was wearing a flag pin on his suit.

what do you think the response would be if obama had been a member of a secessionist group? if the obamas had a teenager who was pregnant? it would be getting a hell of a lot more coverage than palin is receiving.

Can anyone tell me why Stroock is so maligned on these forums? An acquaintance of mine interviewed with them and said they seemed friendly and helpful.

Obama fathered two black children! That is the real news here, people. Palin believes in Jesus; case closed, no scrutiny required.

17: Yes, the same media that harassed John Kerry for ordering Swiss Cheese instead of Cheez Whiz on his Philly steak sandwich.

this is 17. the nomination is historic because she is the first woman on a GOP ticket. also, ferraro is a man so she doesn't count.

obama is running for president; palin's children are not. even obama himself said candidate's children should be off limits.

Obama will win this election. In contrast to other elections, when the GOP successfully sold their candidate's character and maligned the opposition's choice, their PR has suffered in this one. Without this moral superiority, they will lose. Period. Their policies are, and always have been, awful. They needed to rely on character -- Dole's war experience, Bush's straightforward blue-collar cowboy spin, Reagan's charisma -- and they can't do that this time.

24 - agreed.

So the party of "family values" now tells us that Bristol Palin's two out of wedlock babies, redneck babydaddy, drunken father, and McCain's thieving, junkie wife are "private matters."

Better come up with better talking points then that . . .

17:

The MSM is not "attacking" Palin, you moron. It's newsworthy for a number of angles, the least of which is that her daughter is pregnant. It's newsworthy because it's evidence of how hasty this pick was. If McCain had considered this at all, they would have dropped this story to a friendly reporter months ago (she is 5 months pregnant). It would have been old news by the time she got the pick. As it stands now, this is damage control after the fact. Complete incompetance. And if you don't think your bible banging friends won't judge this poor girl, you are delusional. This hurts McCain because he represents the party of intolerance. Don't make this into something it's not - it is not an attack on this poor child. (Not to mention the fact that her mother should have considered the effect of this late coming revelation before she accepted the nomination. Family first, indeed.)

So the party of "family values" now tells us that Bristol Palin's two out of wedlock babies, redneck babydaddy, drunken father, and McCain's thieving, junkie wife are "private matters."

Better come up with better talking points then that . . .

If you really think that "family values" means your family never makes a mistake, then you are truly ignorant. Family values is about how you and your family address situations. In this case, a 17 year old made a mistake (whether you consider it was having sex or doing so without contraception) and now the Palins' family values are kicking in and they are supporting their daughter, she's having the baby (valuing life), and not demonizing the daughter or the boyfriend.

For all of democrats' talk about loving people, they sure like to kick people when they are down...even if the person is a 17 year old girl not running for office, while at the same time wanting to throw up any smokescreen when the actual candidate or leader (e.g. Bill Clinton) has an affair. When Republicans find a candidate (as opposed to family member) acting improperly, they deal with it.

17 again. I don't really see how anyone can argue that this coverage isn't a direct attack on Palin's daughter and on Palin as a mother. The message of the coverage is clear: the daughter is a ho; the mother is a mother of a ho (so is she really a good mother?)---> she is unfit to be the VP nominee. Honestly, I would think all of you who are so so highly educated would see this for what it is: highly misogynistic. I can assure you that if this pile-on continues for too long, it will backfire and play to McCain/Palin's benefit (people will start to feel sorry for her as they did for Hillary)

"Uh...they are as much of a real issue as the pregnancy of the daughter of the VP candidate."

Exactly. None of them matter.

One thing that is truly offensive is the demonizing of a woman who chose to have and raise a baby with downs syndrome.

39: Please. You and I both know that raising a daughter who doesn't use contraception and engages in unsafe sexual activity at 17 is a failing, and possibly even a moral one. There is not a single sane adult that will argue that her future baby is getting a good deal: no 17-year-old is mentally prepared for the rigors of parenting, and, quite frankly, I think that the child should be put up for adoption.

Palin's abstinence-only policies have failed her own daughter. What's more telling than that? Family first, indeed.

The reason the pregnancy is interesting is because it's so unexpected. VP picks are usually people who have been extremely well vetted, almost to the point of boring. Whatever you feel about the pregnancy or the candidates, this just seems a little odd. That's what's fueling the interest.

To clarify, it is truly offensive to demonize a woman because she chose to have and raise a baby knowing the baby has downs syndrome.

Wow, is all I can say. Let me see if I have this correct.
The party that HATES gays send Larry Craig and his 'wide stance' to congress year in and year out.
Family values party is putting up a candidate at the top of the ticket who was an adulterer, horrible father (proven by the fact that his son's despise him and would probably run him over in a tractor if they could get away with it); at the bottom of the ticket they put up an abstinence only education first term governor of Eastern Russia (according to Cindy) with a pregnant teenage daughter. I thought the Republicans were the organized ones. This pick lacks good judgment.

43: Are you then arguing that a moral parent necessarily has children who don't make moral mistakes? That's absurd. And, why should the baby be put up for adoption if (possibly both sets) grandparents are willing to help?

Questions.

1. We know what Palin's family values are. But what about her daughter? What are her family values?

2. Does Palin's daughter want to marry this guy, or does she feel pressured to marry this guy because her mother is the vice presidential nominee?

I ask these questions only because I don't think we know, as 39 writes, that "the Palins' family values are kicking in." As far as I know, Bristol Palin could be pressured--from her family, from the media, from the situation--to have the child and to marry her soon-to-be-baby's father.

The whole issue Bristol Palin being pregnant is incredibly irrelevant to her mother's candidacy.

My concern is that her anti-choice mother might be forcing her to keep the child to placate the neocon voter base.

47: I never said anything about general morality. I said that this was a large failing on her part -- both in terms of policy and family.

If you raise a child who, at 17, becomes pregnant and has kids, then you are partially at fault. That suggests a parental failure. When I was 17, I knew that I could impregnate a woman by engaging in unsafe sex, and I knew that I wasn't qualified to be a parent. Period. My parents instilled those strong values and ideas in me.

I think that, ultimately, this will hurt the kid. Even with grandparents, there will always be a psychologically troubling aspect to his relationship with his parents, both of whom are too young to be good parents.

Memo

To: Sarah Palin
From: American Citizen

You have to start controlling your kids before you can start telling the Navy what to do.

43-- If you actually have any children, I expect that you understand that they are individuals, who make individual decisions (and sometimes mistakes). They are not robots whose every move is programmed by their parents, and oftentimes even the best parents have children who do things that disappoint them. It really is a shame that so many people apparently think this girl is fair game as a political pawn.

43, you know The Obama's mother was 18 when she had him, right? It seems to have worked out okay that he was born, even though she was a teenager and his dad ditched them.

I think Homer Simpson said it best:
D'Oh.

This is really great. Just when I thought Obama screwed himself out of winning by picking Biden as a running mate, McCain goes and flushes his campaign down the toilet by picking a virtually no-experience running mate who turns out to have a pregnant teen daughter and a penchant for abusing her power re state troopers.

McCain could have won if he picked Romney. Now, Obama would have to be caught smoking crack or abusing his children to lose!! Whew Hoo!!!!!!

48: those are interesting questions. But, then it presents another interesting question related to this "parental failure" argument people are making. If Sarah Palin and her husband are supposed to be instilling family values, why shouldn't they further try to instill them now--they value life, not abortion, and taking responsibility and raising a child you conceived. Call it pressure or not, as long as the parents don't abandon their daughter and grandchild, that seems to be a fair approach to parenting: we told you about sex, that you shouldn't have it, but you've done that and these are the consequences that we will help you to deal with as best we can, in a way that lines up with our values.

The "moral" failures of the children of parents who preach "morals" sell papers. Can't be helped.

52: this is not "a mistake." Engaging in what was probably brief, unsatisfying sex without the use of contraception is a HUGE mistake, and one that's directly tied to Palin's policies. What if the president of MADD's child was caught drunk driving? It shows a considerable failing.

what i find ironic is that the campaign spins this as Bristol "deciding" to keep the baby, when her own mother would take the ability to make that decision away from others.

also, Creationists to VP!

This concept that Palin has abused her power re a state trooper has no basis in the factual record. It is one guy, who was fired for failing to do his job, making these accusations. In fact, Palin has welcomed any questions on that issue and has addressed them, without any factual retort from the other side. The guy who lost his (political) appointment has a record that speaks for itself and either confirms or denies Palin's objective reasons for giving that appointment to someone else. No one has pointed out anything controverting Palin's reasons for finding someone new for that post (note: the guy fired was not Palin's ex-brother-in-law, but a guy who claims Palin wanted him to fire the ex-brother-in-law).

60 - interesting. Why, then, is the legislature investigating the claims? Many times, where there is smoke, there is also fire. We'll see what the investigation turns up.

60: keep reading. First she didn't put any pressure on him at all, then she admitted (after a taped phone call was released) that some of her aids may have done some things that gave the impression of pressure (of course these aides would have acted without any direction from her). We'll see what happens in her deposition, which will occur sometime during her vice-presidential campaign. Story or not, this is a collossal mess that McCain voluntarily walked into. You can't control media, but you can control who you pick for VP. Epic failure.

this is 17 again.

like I said, grasping at straws for anything, anything, anything that will stick. the state trooper scandal is bogus. the experience attack only heightens awareness of Obama's weakness. the "mother of a ho" angle WILL backfire since it is a child we are talking about and Americans are not as cynical and brutal as the average journalist from NYC or D.C.

I want to hear from the father to be. Is he truly on board with this, or does he bolt after the election and before the baby is born?

61, 62: we will see what the investigation turns up, but it is still an investigation that, to my knowledge and from what you have posted, has revealed no wrongdoing on anyone's part so far.

Is Kent really going to try to hear cases while under indictment? That's ridiculous. Can the circuit court or the chief judge or someone suspend him pending his trial?

It would be a mess if he tried to stay active. Who would be happy with their case being assigned to him? And can he really hear a case tried by the AUSA's in the office that just indicted him?

17/63... I don't know if you've noticed this, but you are the ONLY person on this thread that has called the girl a "ho." (Repeatedly, I might add.) Everyone else is looking at the actual relevant story, which is that a VP nominee who preaches abstinence-only education and anti-choice politics turns up with, whoops! a pregnant teenage child. YOUR'E the one trying to turn it into a smear against the girl. So please stop.

53, I'm an Obama supporter and I agree with your argument.

That said, care to defend/explain this (see link below). It's an issue that speaks to Palin's JUDGMENT, and is therefore fair game. If this how she actually thinks or makes decisions in a recent (only five months ago) stressful situation, is she really who we want as our Vice President, especially given John McCain's age....?

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png

I'm not sure how Palin's pro-life policies are somehow lessened in all of this. (Anti-choice? really? then, are you anti-life?). Certainly, this board isn't filled with people who believe Palin's daughter should just abort this baby. Someone has mentioned adoption, which is a great choice if that's what the family wants to do.

68: can you describe the picture? I'm wary of opening links for obvious reasons.

I'm sorry, is there something wrong with society letting 17 year old girls know that they should not be getting pregnant? As far as I'm concerned, she should feel ashamed, as should her parents for not raising her to be smart about her sexual health.

Yes, teenagers make mistakes, but getting pregnant is probably THE most avoidable. I have no sympathy for anyone here. Keep it in your pants till you're an adult.

I'm curious to hear the Pubs defend Palin's revolving door stance on the Bridge to Nowhere (and of course she kept money given to her even as she flip-flopped on the issue).

Did McCain really do this poor of a job vetting his VP pick? I'm far more concerned about his judgment than Palin's daughter.

17 - put down the kool-aid and face facts. McCain done screwed up, and in the middle of his own convention, too.

71: Agreed. And I think that this would have been avoided without Palin's draconian and dogmatic abstinence-only policy. Kids have healthy sexual desires and there are unhealthy and healthy ways to express them. Palin's policy encouraged the former, because it created information asymmetries about contraception, birth control, and the implications of coitus.

There is no one as morally judgmental as a leftist who thinks he smells hypocracy. By the way, 49, I'd think someone posting on this blog would at least know what "neocon" means, rather than just using it in the general lefty style of referring to strawmen Republicans in general.

69: i think abortion is a horrible thing and would never advise someone to have one. i also don't think i have the right to make that decision for anyone but myself.

which am i...pro-choice? pro-life?

69: i think abortion is a horrible thing and would never advise someone to have one. i also don't think people should be allowed to have abortions.

which am i...pro-choice? pro-life?

They did their vetting just fine. They actually thought this was a good idea.

My cynical side tells me it was just a ploy to somehow make the criminalized-abortion agenda look less hypocritical by picking a woman whose life seems to be a shining, self-righteous example about how to live your life without abortion OR birth control (both of which are terrible sins).

59 -- Good point.

67-- As the highly educated, politically correct person you no doubt are, I cannot believe you don't see the underlining insinuation of the coverage (i.e., the "ho" angle-- maybe you need to brush up on your Derrida). That is the hook and the subtext-- not dry and boring "abstinence only" or "choice."

The girl's actions do nothing to undermine Palin's policies. First, it was the girl who made her own choice, as teenage girls are known to do. What the daughter does does not make the mother a hypocrite. Second, the daughter's actions for many people may reinforce the benefit of abstinence (I know this may be hard to understand). Third, the family is supporting the daughter despite what happened and despite the political cost (wouldn't it be easier for them to force her to get a secret abortion outside of the country?). Fourth, the daughter is showing IMMENSE courage in going through this hugely difficult period in the national spotlight. It is hard enough to be pregnant as a teenage girl without millions of people impugning your mother for it.

76: read Freakonomics. One of the consequences of abortion and pro-choice policies is a better crime rate.

76: You sound pro-choice to me.

71 - I could not agree less. I'm likely voting for Obama, but even I think it is commendable that Palin raised a daughter who is NOT a c*ck tease.

I also have an image of the boyfriend finding out that he is getting married while in front of the television.

80: How does this reinforce the benefits of abstinence? Sexual desire is sexual desire. You cannot sublimate it, you cannot subsume it. Palin's policy FAILED. FAILED. FAILED. She told them to avoid sexual intercourse and they didn't do it. Instead, she could have referred them to effective contraception and prevented this pregnancy.

75 is right. Palin's base is the Alaskan secessionist constituency.

In case anyone missed the cue, 76 is pro-choice and 78 is pro-life.

"There is no one as morally judgmental as a leftist who thinks he smells hypocracy."

__________________________________________

What about a leftist who smells an inability to spell simple words?

80, what it does is show that, abstinence-only education aside, teenagers--even those from so-called "good" families--are still going to have sex. it's going to happen, no matter how many times you tell them not to.

given that, it is incredibly stupid to not educate them about sex and the tools available to decrease the risk of the activity. the abstinence-only crowd thinks that if you continually tell kids not to have sex, they won't have sex, and the problem of teenage pregnancy will disappear. this shows that despite the best efforts of the abstinence-only crowd, such expectations are foolish.

80: Wrong. The situation clearly shows Palins bad parenting and poor decision making (e.g. abstenence only policy).

When children make mistakes and screw up, the parents are just as culpable as the children, if not more culpable. If you raise your children properly, they will not make a huge mistake like this.

HTH.

70: Not a problem. It's a flow chart of Sarah Palin's decisions from the time her water broke with her most recent baby to the time she gave birth.

In a nutshell:

She knows in advance that her baby has Down Syndrome, yet, when her water breaks while down in Dallas, Texas for an energy summit, instead of rushing to the nearest hospital, she proceeds to give a 30 minute speech at the forum. Then, instead of going to the hospital which she presumably should have done from the get go, she boards A PLANE, on Alaska Airlines, going from Dallas to Anchorage. Only, Alaska Airlines doesn't have a direct flight on the return, which would have at least kept the flying time down to a approximate minimum of 6 hours and 55 minutes. There is a lay-over in Seattle. In labor and having experienced contractions as early as the energy summit, does Mrs. Palin at the very least THEN check herself into the nearest Seattle hospital. No. She continues on to Anchorage. Next, instead of going to the nearest and top state hospitals, she and her husband (who was with her all along) travel approximately 30 miles to a regional hospital to give birth. I must confess, I'm a young male so, other than what I've seen on TV, I wasn't sure what the standard protocol was once your water breaks. After my mom (who is completely non-partisan) told me you're supposed to go immediately to the hospital, I've seriously begun to question this woman's judgment. Nonetheless, I still welcome other's opinions. Does anyone else think these were wise decisions. **If you think these aspects of the story are so unbelievable that you need sources, let me know. I will gladly provide the WSJ and local Alaskan paper articles that cite them**

Actually, 59, one can decide to keep a baby or put it up for adoption. You see, killing it isn't the only other option. It's a bit scary you think that way.

This election will be remembered, rather ironically in light of Obama's rhetoric, as the election in which Democrats finally learned how to make character attacks a central part of their campaign.

82, winner. certainly not "anti-life," right, 69?

88: you're being ridiculous. You don't think that the daughter and her beau were aware of contraception? It wasn't a policy matter so much as a "being 17 and silly" matter. They probably thought they could prevent pregnancy by pulling out in time, or any number of other absurd prophylactic ideas conjured by the teenage mind.

76/78: You are like most people, you are pro-choice and anti-abortion. The issue is so extreme that people try to label you one or the other, but they failt to recognize that you are the majority opinion.

Guys at my high school . . .

Oh, wait.

94: If they had a proper education instead of the absteneince only b.s., maybe they would know better.

97: They weren't already aware of contraception? I doubt it. Kids are well aware of alternatives these days with the ubiquity of the internet, Sex and the City, and general R&B/Rap music; it's not the 1920s.

94: you just proved the argument you moron. They probably had silly notions of "pulling out" because they didn't receive a proper sexual education and free (confidential) birth control. If you're seriously about reducing abortion because it's murder, you've got to get serious about how to do it. Abortion could remain legal and we could theoretically reduce the number of abortions in America to the failure rate of birth control - 0.1%. That would be an effective abortion policy. Needless to say, outlawing it would not get you 0.0%.

Palin and her spawn don't matter. This election was going to be close one way or another. The Base was going to find a reason to come out for McCain, whether it was Romney as VP, or possible judge appointments, or just voting against Obama. VPs almost never make the difference, and Palin is not LBJ in 1960. She's not swinging any states. In the end, it comes down to Obama v. McCain, and McCain knows he can't win that fight. That's why he threw this political hail mary. While it might get caught, it won't be in the end zone. It'll make the game a little closer, but won't make the difference.

53, I'm an Obama supporter and I agree with your argument.

That said, care to defend/explain this (see link below). It's an issue that speaks to Palin's JUDGMENT, and is therefore fair game. If this is how she actually thinks or makes decisions in a recent (only five months ago) stressful situation, is she really who we want as our Vice President, especially given John McCain's age....?

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png

It's a flow chart of Sarah Palin's decisions from the time her water broke with her most recent baby to the time she gave birth.

In a nutshell (for those wary of opening up random links):

Sarah Palin knows in advance that her baby has Down Syndrome, yet, when her water breaks while down in Dallas, Texas for an energy summit, instead of rushing to the nearest hospital, she proceeds to give a 30 minute speech at the forum. Then, instead of going to the hospital which she presumably should have done from the get go, she boards A PLANE, on Alaska Airlines, going from Dallas to Anchorage. Only, Alaska Airlines doesn't have a direct flight on the return, which would have at least kept the flying time down to an approximate minimum of 6 hours and 55 minutes. There is a lay-over in Seattle. In labor and having experienced contractions as early as the energy summit, does Mrs. Palin at the very least THEN check herself into the nearest Seattle hospital. No. She continues on to Anchorage. Next, instead of going to the nearest and top state hospitals, she and her husband (who was with her all along) travel approximately 30 miles to a regional hospital to give birth. I must confess, I'm a young male so, other than what I've seen on TV, I wasn't sure what the standard protocol was once your water breaks. After my mom (who is completely non-partisan) told me you're supposed to go immediately to the hospital, I've seriously begun to question this woman's judgment. Nonetheless, I still welcome other's opinions. Does anyone else think these were wise decisions. **If you think the accounts I've provided are not true or are so unbelievable that you'd like sources, let me know. I will gladly provide the WSJ and local Alaskan paper articles that cite them**

In Bratislava the daughters of vice presidential candidates have babies out of wedlock at age 17 all the time . . . it's no big deal.

94, the "logic" behind abstinence-only is that sex education (including education about birth control) encourages kids to have sex by making them think it's safe and OK. by teaching only abstinence, kids get the message that sex is not safe or OK, and they will stop having it.

now, what sounds ridiculous?

-88

81: read Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard.

104 = Tom Cruise.

103: kids have sex. They are going to have sex. You cannot tell them not to by scaring them. They will always find a partner who makes them feel "safe." Because they are hardwired to have sex. After puberty. And they will. So make sure the girls are on the pill and the boys have condoms. This is not rocket science. Mommies and daddies who think sex is evil can still tell their kids that sex is evil. But they should know about the science of it. Taking the pill while not having sex can't be a sin, right?

I guess they'll have to change the spelling of the Alaskan capital to "Juno"

Nobody's attacking the 17 year old girl. This is the issue:

Palin couldn't implement her abstinence-only policies in her own home, how is she supposed to do it in a country of 300 million people?

A secondary issue is the BS that is their family first agenda. Forcing a 17 year old girl to marry a self-proclaimed "redneck" guy whom she will probably get divorced from in 3 years after he runs out on the family are not what the majority of this country believes are wholesome family values.

What would happen if she were poor and unable to feed and clothe the kid? Put the child in foster care?

101 here: Why is no one addressing 101's points?

107-Brilliant!!!!

101/109: it's because you led off with "I'm an Obama supporter," and everyone realized there was no point in continuing to talk to an irrational person.

To 80 ("the daughter is showing IMMENSE courage").

We don't know what the daughter is showing. The only thing that we know is that, according to news sources, she's going to have the baby and she's going to marry Levi, the baby's father. I raised the questions earlier (I'm # 48), but it seems to me that it's just as likely that Bristol and Levi are getting married because they feel pressured into doing so.

111, LOL. You can't be that partisan, can you? Seriously now, address my point in post 101. Thanks.

111, LOL. You can't be that partisan, can you? Seriously now, address my point in post 101. Thanks.

101/109: It seems like bad judgment. She may have known, however, that she has lengthy labors and she wanted to be with her family when it happened. Not a great decision, but not a completely wreckless one (if she knew she has contractions for a long time). Probably risky. Which is why she is perfect for McCain. Shoot from the hip, rush to judgment, blah blah. I fear this.

101--Was she in contact with her obstetrician during this time frame? If you answer is Yes or I don't know, then your point holds no water. (pun intended)

Okay, 101, how's this. Trig is Palin's 5th child. Women who have had multiple children know how their bodies act during labor. It's very possible that she knew she had a long time between water breaking and delivery and wanted to be at her own hospital with her own doctor. And...it worked out just fine. Down Syndrome is a chromosomal abnormality, not a delivery defect. There wasn't anything likely to be special or traumatic about the birth itself.

Why are people so hellbent on second guessing this? Why are *dudes* so hellbent on second guessing this? Because of your immense experience and understanding with a laboring uterus?

103: that's not bad logic. The question is whether it works. Empirically speaking, it doesn't. Any decent sociologist will tell you that there are more teenage pregnancies under the tutelage of abstinence-only than under sex ed.

HOWEVER, abstinence-only programs tend to be taught in more rural communities where the pregnancy rate is already higher, so it complicates things.

How do I feel? As a libertarian, I think that government programs should be mandated to teach both if they so choose, and that the federal government should stay out of it. People forget that abstinence-only programs aren't a federal issue. Which is why Palin's daughter is irrelevant to the campaign and her mom's platform.

What's galling is this: When the subject is a pregnancy to an unwed, minority teenage mother growing up in some (presumably Democratic) urban area, that pregnancy becomes fodder for lectures from conservatives about bad parenting, the perils of welfare spending and so on. But when the subject is a pregnancy to an unwed, white teenager from some small town in a Republican state, that pregnancy is...a celebration of the wonders of God's magnificence--and choosing life!

-Thomas Schaller

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

This is a repulsive family. The husband does not have a college degree. Every effort needs to be made to keep these people as far away from the White House as possible.

What this whole episode shows is that: (1) John McCain did not properly vet his VP choice; or (2) chose to thrust a pregnant 17 year old girl into the national spotlight for political gain.

96 -- subtle, yet brilliant!

119: the hypocrisy of the Republican party is undeniable, but let's ask a few questions:

Which is more common -- the Republican version of teen pregnancy or the Democratic urban one?

How does public policy affect either? Do Democratic-