The daughter, Bristol, plans to marry the father, the campaign said.
...Mrs. Palin said: “...As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows that she has our unconditional love and support.”
The McCain campaign says it was aware of her daughter’s pregnancy before it named her as the running mate on Friday.
Comments ... #
No, instead she's decided to KEEP her BABY rather than have it ripped apart and sucked out of her body piece by piece like an unwanted parasite or tumor and dumped in the trash.
posted by SillyWabbit on Sep 01, 2008 at 01:41:38 pm #
What you don't know, is that when she gives birth to the baby, she's going to send it through a time machine back to 5 months ago, where Sarah will claim it as hers.
SEE IT ALL COMES TOGETHER FOLKS.
posted by TheTalentedMrC on Sep 01, 2008 at 02:04:24 pm #
Ahh, yet another pole dancer in the family.
I wonder if she'll hate 60% of Americans like her mommy.
If she's 7 months now, the due date should be within a couple weeks of the election.
The question is what is going on inside the McCain campaign. They claim they know about this before they choose Gov. Palin as their candidate. I think we would all have to be pretty gullible to believe that.
For some reason, the McCain camp decided to pick a person they (and the rest of the country) knew almost nothing about. Someone who McCain met briefly only once. McCain's decision is simply reckless.
posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 01, 2008 at 03:20:30 pm #
Ahhhh....more people expecting Christians to be perfect. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't when you're a christian in America.
Of course, if this were Bidens daughter pregnant, the libs wouldn't be saying a word. Just like they are silent about millions of babies being slaughtered here in America every year through abortions.
Funny...no outcry for aborted babies...but, you'll stand on street corners holding up protest signs for 3,000 Iraqi citizens being killed in a five year time period...compared to millions of babies each year here at home.
It turns outs the lib pro-choicers are still bigger hypocrites than Christians....imagine that.
If Monica Lewinsky got pregnant-Clintons ratings would have been even higher.
posted by CharlieA-Z on Sep 01, 2008 at 03:37:30 pm #
BTW, where WAS Clinton 7 months ago?
posted by CharlieA-Z on Sep 01, 2008 at 03:38:14 pm #
Gov. Palin is almost insignificant in this story. This story is about John McCain. Choosing a VP is the first executive decision a president makes. It's seems this one was made hastily, recklessly and without fully thorough consideration.
posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 01, 2008 at 03:39:31 pm #
The 'family values' party has its VP candidate with a pregnant 17-year-old?
I can't stop laughing. Nice job on the safe sex discussions, great job of being aware of what their teenage daughter is doing and who she's doing it with.
We can now add to her otherwise-thin resume that Sarah (and her husband) flunked the 'parenting 101' class.
Now it is unfortunate that Gov. Palin's daughter is pregnant, but let's be honest. That happens. It isn't unusual.
What is bewildering is how a person with this much baggage slipped past the vetting process. How did John McCain blow it this badly? They say he is a "maverick", but "reckless gambler" seems more accurate.
posted by thetoledowire_com on Sep 01, 2008 at 04:44:49 pm #
Sha can't run her family but she wants voters to believe she can run the country? Sigh. At least we aren't hearing the cracks about the "baby's daddy" stuff. That only happens to black unwed mothers. They're different. Aren't they?
Now that's not really fair Holland. I am in no way in favor of Palin as a VP, but her daughter getting pregnant hardly reflects on her ability as a politician.
We need to be worried about her past experience or lack there of in that field, not as mother of the year.
I say the Pubs have ZERO chance anymore and can only thank McCains caving to the pressure to pick her. Leiberman may actually have won it for them. No way now, no way.
holland, why are black unwed mothers different? Seems to me shows like Jerry Springer have lots of white unwed mothers who use the term 'baby daddy'.
I don't look down my nose or judge anybody who has a minor daughter getting pregnant - how self righteous of those who do. Teens will find a way to do what they want to do & no parent can be there 100 percent of the time - family values or not. I fail to see how this thread has turned into the tired abortion rights battle cry - what's abortion got to do with it? I fail to see how being Christian has any damned thing to do with the thread either. Why do religious people seem to make leaps about what they presume people think, even if the topic has nothing to do with religion? Family values & religion don't always have to be one & the same - they can each exist independently.
That said, my main concern about Palin (among many that have nothing to do with her parenting skills) - is what happens, to quote the media - "Palin may be one heartbeat away from being president" (McCain's age bashing I presume). A person's sex or gender is irrelevant to me as far as being the president or vp - but besides having a few kids, one is a baby with Downs Syndrome - special needs baby, is it not? Is she going to be spreading herself a little thin? And, in the off chance she's needed long term away from her kids, or happens to end up being president, does she simply employ nannies? Is this what family values would suggest she do? Yes, of course her husband can handle the kids - many men do this well. Just seem short sighted to me, and seems like grasping by McCain. I highly doubt Sarah will attempt to pass herself off as the baby's mother - this is not 1950 after all.
posted by starling02 on Sep 01, 2008 at 06:31:24 pm #
And Bristol being pregnant is important how?
posted by GraphicsGuy on Sep 01, 2008 at 07:03:59 pm #
It's important here because the Republican party promotes itself as the "Family Values" party. The only time they show any mercy or compassion for a moral lapse is when it happens to one of its own.
Sad. Sad when the public is going to start dwelling on the kid getting pregnant.
Really fu**ing sad.
posted by GraphicsGuy on Sep 01, 2008 at 07:16:39 pm #
No, instead she's decided to KEEP her BABY rather than have it ripped apart and sucked out of her body piece by piece like an unwanted parasite or tumor and dumped in the trash
Yes, luckily in America Bristol is free to do what she wants with her body. At least until her mother gets into office and helps appoint SCOTUS judges who say otherwise. Ironic, eh?
How quickly until Palin withdraws from the campaign? I mean, come on, she's got a 4-month old with Down Syndrome and a 17-year-old with a baby on the way....sounds like she's got more important things to do, than to be McCain's trophy candidate. It reminds me of when John Edwards decided to continue campaigning with his wife had a recurrence of her breast cancer. Disgusting....
You libs make me want to puke. If it was a daughter of Obama this was happening with, you'd never have heard about it. Because they would have quietly gotten her an abortion.
Funny you mention Edwards, how many of you several weeks ago were wishing he would be the VP pick? While your hero's wife was suffering through inoperable cancer he was out banging another woman. What a man!
He wasn't this libs VP pic. Hillery wasn't my pres. pic either. With Hillery came Bill, and I did not like Bill's shenannigans in the White House. Your concept of a liberal is pretty warped. Not all liberals think an unwed or unwanted pregnancy can only end with an abortion. I just believe that it is the business of the woman carrying the pregnancy - nobody elses. Not somebody's religious belief, not the government's. Nobody's but the woman. Why in the hell do you right wing idiots think that all liberals have low moral standards? Just because I don't spout the Bible or prozelytize doesn't mean a liberal cant or doesn't lead a moral life. What it does mean is that I don't believe that I have a right to tell you how to live yours. Sure wish you could return the same consideration.
You libs make me want to puke
You sure it's the libs, and not the alcohol? Put down the stupid juice, son!
I just believe that it is the business of the woman carrying the pregnancy - nobody elses.
What about the poor baby's business who can't yet express their feelings. They don't get a say in whether they get to live or are sentenced to death by their mother?
I was born and raised a Democrat with strong family values and taught that abortion for anything less then the pregnancy being a threat to the mothers life was a crime; not some method of birth control a selfish and irresponsible adult get to make by playing god.
Obama statement...
...look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.For Obama to imply that having children is a punishment is over the top even for an extreme lefty. Then he made the further mistake of comparing children to a STD. Whoa buddy! That's no way to win over the Republicans as Obamicans and it it sure as hell convinced me that he is not the person I want as my president.
McCain/Palin '08
Well, this puts to rest the rumor that the Down Symdrome baby isn't Palin's.
"No, instead she's decided to KEEP her BABY...."
OK. This mentality absolutely kills me.
Years ago, a girl that used to go to my church got pregnant. The church preached abstinence-only.
She told a sob story about how she was going to go to the abortion clinic, and the car wouldn't start.
She took it as a sign from God that she was supposed to have the baby.
So after telling the church this, she was made to be a role model for all of the younger girls at church. They even had her tell the story FROM THE PULPIT. After her story, everyone in the church had to come up to her and her boyfriend and shake their hands and hug them.
Their logic was that she got knocked up, but at least she didn't kill it, so she must be a saint.
It's so hypocritical. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Period.
That's what abstinence-only education gets you.
Both McCain's and Obama's campaigns are saying that it is a private matter and that the family's privacy should be respected.
In particular, I thought it was noteworthy that Obama said that a candidate's family should be off limits, but especially their children should be off limits.
Sorry future first ladies have a part in the administration, especially if they are ashamed to be americans.
posted by Linecrosser on Sep 01, 2008 at 11:40:41 pm #
not sure if anyone's said this alrady but uh...
alaska is real boaring in the winter. not much else to do but bang each other while the sun turns circles south of the equator. alaska is a wild place. a pregnant teen in alaska is like a ghetto child with kool-aid stains around thier mouth. they are everywhere. whats the big deal here OTHER THAN she's "gasp" a republican?
you libs just keep talking out of both sides of your face.
if a little liberal child decides to go get a baby sucked out her into one of these...
you all stand up and cheer and congratulate her.
when her mom is a republican and she decides to bring life in the world, it's fodder for stupid images and slander.
you people bashing a 17yr old girl for getting pregnant should be ashamed of yourselves. get a life. look at the clothes kids wear to school, i'm amazed 10 year olds aren't having orgies on the playground. a 17 year opld girl getting getting knocked up has been happening for decades, now it's a big deal???
you people make me sick.
http://www.bestofasseenontv.com/flowbee1/flowbee.jpg
for some reason the last post didn't include this pic. should have showed up after "sucked out of her with one of these"
Ah, all that horseshit over Hillary was a bunch of lies anyway. those women supporting her didn't want an 'empowered' woman. They didn't want a 'strong woman' . They didn't want to 'break the cieling'. They didn't want to 'bridgs the gender gap', no-all lies and horseshit-what they wanted was a LIBERAL woman and nothing else will do-similar to 'only a LIBERAL black. No others need apply.
Vultures, soaring. Ever watching, waiting for their next meal. The sick & the weak are their prey.
Although Obama probably won't be my pick, he gained several points with me - and certainly my respect by saying Bristol was a private matter.
As for the rest of the vultures, further proof that the gene pool is in bad need of chlorine.
posted by GraphicsGuy on Sep 02, 2008 at 04:02:11 am #
yeah BHO had no choice in the matter, he had to tell people to shut up about it.
his mother was 18 when she gave birth to him so it would make it kinda hard to tell someone it's not possible for the child of a teen to become something. hell...even the left wing socialist candidate for president.
had he even tried to say something about this he would have been crucified for it.
Pink_Slip -- one of your comments stood out to me, as many do. As an educated political commentator (yes I promoted us bloggers to commentators, and you have always represented your views well) do you really believe the conservative judges on the SC, both sitting and potential, want to make abortion illegal? Or are you just spouting the party line.
Judge Allito, Thomas, Scallia, and Roberts do not advocate that abortion should be ILLEGAL. They believe it is a State's rights issue, that has no basis for Federal enforcement or support in the Constitution.
If McCain were to win, appoint one or two Justices who do believe similarly, and, an abortion case got to the SC, then they may overturn Roe v. Wade. That would not make abortion ILLEGAL, it would give the states the right to determine if abortion was allowed in that state.
The the citizens of each state could vote on abortion, and I would guess at least 1/3 would have some form of abortion pass. Citizens could then vote with their feet if they did not like the results, or travel for abortions as they deemed necessary.
As another poster commented - this has little to do with the Palin pregnancy issue, other than the cries of hypocrisy the liberal posters are spouting, and the statements that any parent of a teenager who makes a mistake must be a hypocrite, a failure, or unfit to lead. The hypocrisy is all theirs.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 02, 2008 at 08:56:54 am #
...do you really believe the conservative judges on the SC...want to make abortion illegal?
pink_slip notwithstanding, most people on both sides of the political debate are completely ignorant about how the real tensions revolve around the original architecture of our government and how off-balance it has become.
A great primer is this article: 50 Laboratories of Democracy
TAHL, I never said any newly appointed SCOTUS judges would make abortion illegal. However, if they disagree that women have a right to privacy---then yes, states would be able to deny women this right.
Isn't this supposed to be a constitutional democracy - not a theocracy?
Pink - here is the great part; some states for example ALASKA, have a privacy clause in their Constitutions. Privacy does not have to be "created" or "interpreted" into them, like has been done on the federal level.
In those states (outside of a constitutional amendment) courts would have to recognize the right to privacy a woman has when writing and enacting abortion laws. In many other states abortion would be determined to be legal by a landslide - see NE "blue" states and California.
"luckily in America Bristol is free to do what she wants with her body. At least until her mother gets into office and helps appoint SCOTUS judges who say otherwise."
I guess I went too far "interpreting" your comment to mean you think new conservative judges on the SCOTUS will make abortion "illegal" sorry for overreaching.
The SC Justices who do support overturning Roe v. Wade do not believe a woman does not have a right to privacy. They believe the US Constitution provides no basis for the Court holding that States cannot pass laws about abortion.
We have rights which exist as humans. The Federal government may restrict only those rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, all others remain with the states and the people. Roe v. Wade is bad FEDERAL law because it has no foundation in the US Constitution. If the PEOPLE in each state vote for or against abortion at the state level, so be it. If the vote goes the wrong way, or your state does not uphold your privacy - see smoking ban -- you can lobby for change - or VOTE WITH YOUR FEET. Move to the privacy.
TAHL
posted by TheAssHoleLawyer on Sep 02, 2008 at 02:15:01 pm #
The Federal government may restrict only those rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, all others remain with the states and the people
Right. And according to the Supreme Court, the right to privacy exists in the Constitution under the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment.
Privacy does not have to be "created" or "interpreted" into them, like has been done on the federal level.
This is EXACTLY what the Supreme Court is for----to interpret the law. Your just advocating for judges to "interpret" this law differently.
"You sure it's the libs, and not the alcohol? Put down the stupid juice, son!"
First of all, I'm not your son jerkoff.
Second of all I don't drink alcohol, ever.Apparently, in the matter of abortion it's all timing. Can we have liberals aborted years after they are born?
Seriously, where do you draw the line?
The dems won't even outlaw late term/partial birth abortion. I defy you to tell me that isn't murder.
© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk
current date: 19-Nov-2008 11:37 A.M.
If only Bristol had been brought up learning about the wonders of abstinence. Oh, wait...
posted by joshwoodward on Sep 01, 2008 at 01:13:19 pm #