How it is

So, if you get pregnant at 17 by the man you intend to marry, it means that your mother is unfit both as a parent and a candidate, but if you get arrested in the middle of a bar brawl, it is a private, family matter that reflects in no way on your father the candidate and must be buried by the mass media.

We certainly can’t have any coverage about how you made “intimidating statements” to the police, especially if they might be of the nature of “my father is a Senator and I’ll have your job”.  Following up on that sort of thing would be a distraction.

A distraction from portraying Britsol Palin as more debauched than say, Bill Clinton was ever treated, that is.  Of course, if she was an actual candidate and had a child with a staffer that she never intended to marry because she was already married, then they would have a moral obligation to bury the rumor, even after some rag like the Enquirer breaks the story.  If she was a Democrat, of course.

Just making sure that I have that straight.

Update: More How It Is. The American people aren’t stupid.  When Bill Maher is saying that you are going too far, you’ve gone too far.  The American people will punish people who treat them with contempt at the polling place.

5 Comments

  1. […] As long as they’re the kids of Democrats. […]

  2. Manish says:

    So, if you get pregnant at 17 by the man you intend to marry, it means that your mother is unfit both as a parent and a candidate

    Umm..do you have even a semi-credible link that anyone has said that having a pregnant teenage daughter disqualifies Palin as a candidate? The only criticism that I’ve seen is that her child is an example of the failure of abstinence-only education in place of sex-ed while noting that Palin is against sex-ed. There has also been some ink spilled about the hypocrisy of the family values crowd seeing nothing wrong with Palin’s daughter but railing against African-American teenage mothers, but thats a whole other matter.

  3. Phelps says:

    Aha! Trick question! Pretty much anyone talking about it has lost what credibility they had in the last week.

    How about these:

    http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080904/COLUMNISTS09/809040370
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/09/gov-sarah-palin.html

  4. Aaron says:

    In my opinion, the reaction to the Palin pregnancy is primarily a reaction to the party that champions family values coming to the political forefront with a pro character, pro family message being delivered by folks who don’t live up to the standard. When you parade the young man who knocked up your underage daughter on nationwide television, us voters out here are perfectly entitled to an opinion on how the Palin household is being run and what are opinion is of the candidate based on that assessment.

  5. Phelps says:

    I’ll turn the reigns over to Neal Stephenson for this one, from The Diamond Age:

    “You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others — “after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?

    “Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticize others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticize another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behavior — “you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

    “You wouldn’t believe the things they said about the original Victorians. Calling someone a Victorian in those days was almost like calling them a fascist or a Nazi.”

    Both Hackworth and Major Napier were dumbfounded. “Your Grace!” Napier exclaimed. “I was naturally aware that their moral stance was radically different from ours- but I am astonished to be informed that they actually condemned the first Victorians.”

    “Of course they did,” Finkle-McGraw said.

    “Because the first Victorians were hypocrites,” Hackworth said, getting it.

    Finkle-McGraw beamed upon Hackworth like a master upon his favored pupil. “As you can see, Major Napier, my estimate of Mr. Hackworth’s mental acuity was not ill-founded.”

    “While I would never have supposed otherwise, Your Grace,” Major Napier said, “it is nonetheless gratifying to have seen a demonstration.” Napier raised his glass in Hackworth’s direction.

    “Because they were hypocrites,” Finkle-McGraw said, after igniting his calabash and shooting a few tremendous fountains of smoke into the air, “the Victorians were despised in the late twentieth century. Many of the persons who held such opinions were, of course, guilty of the most nefarious conduct themselves, and yet saw no paradox in holding such views because they were not hypocrites themselves — “they took no moral stances and lived by none.”

    “So they were morally superior to the Victorians-“ Major Napier said, still a bit snowed under.

    “-even though-in fact, because — “‹they had no morals at all.” There was a moment of silent, bewildered head-shaking around the copper table.

    “We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy,” Finkle-McGraw continued. “In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception — he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it’s a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing.”

    “That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code,” Major Napier said, working it through, “does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code.”

    “Of course not,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It’s perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved — the missteps we make along the way — are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal, struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power.”