There's been a lot of talk over the last few days about how candidates' children should be "off limits" in discussions of the candidates. While I am largely in agreement with that sentiment, I have a problem with it as well. The issue of Sarah Palin's new grand-fetus may not really be relevant to the discussion of her as Veep, but her approach to the issue, her thoughts on how to help prevent teen pregnancy, and her support, or lack thereof, for services to teenage mothers not related to the Governor is HIGHLY relevant. Hence the above graphic from Salon which shows Governor Palin's use of line item veto to cut $1,100,000 of funding (more than 20%) for Covenant House, a home for teen mothers. She also slashed $25,000 from the Fairbanks Community Food Bank, but that's worth another posting.
In addition, Palin's refusal to support anything but abstinence based sex education (I'm thinkin' THAT horse has left the proverbial barn) in Alaska's schools, begs the question of not only what did Bristol hear about sex in school, but what did she hear about sex in her Pentecostal home and church?
Yeah... It seems fair to ask that Bristol and her obvious fecundity should not be a major part of the campaign discussion. At the same time it is rare indeed that a candidate so strongly advocates one set of principles, policies, and... "values" while providing such an incredibly clear example of the arguments for the other side!
For further examples of this behavior see... Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, or David Vitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment