Washington Post reporter ‘angry’ at McCain for VP pick
flockwoodSo much for media objectivity. Washington Post reporter Sally Quinn, the atheist who was picked to write an “On Faith” blog, says she’s hopping mad at the presumptive Republican presidential nominee because he picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.
“My first reaction was shock. Then anger,” Quinn writes in her recent post. “John McCain chose a running mate simply because she is a woman and one who appealed to the Republican’s conservative evangelical base. Now, with news that Palin’s 17-year-old unmarried daughter is pregnant, McCain’s pick may not even find support among ‘family values” voters.’”
Quinn presumes to know a lot about ‘family values voters’ for someone who has spent little or no time at evangelical churches over the decades.
My hunch is that family values voters will rally behind Gov. Palin and her 17-year-old daughter. The folks making most of the snide, ugly, hateful comments will come from other quarters.
What do you all think? Will evangelicals shun the Palins because their daughter isn’t opting for an abortion? Or will most of them be supportive?
September 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Are those the only two options?
And what about non-evangelicals? Aren’t there some in the GOP?
September 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Some people have a remarkable ability to rationalize. For many of the GOP faithful, unwed pregnancy was a damnable sin yesterday. Today it is a heartwarming and beautiful story, filled with love and redemption. Moral flexibility, I reckon. Unlike infidelity in the White House, which is an impeachable offense, this little matter should be a private family matter according to the Religious Right. I’m more interested on how it will affect other voters, the kind who engage in critical thinking.
Colbert King in the WaPo has an interesting view on people’s attitudes on teen pregnancy. He’s calling on people to give the Palin family the respect that was not shown to him.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 am
Jose, you state, “Unlike infidelity in the White House, which is an impeachable offense…” Bill Clinton wasn’t impeached for infidelity. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice was also the main charge in the Watergate hearings and subsequent prosecutions and, indeed, is usually the centerpiece of any political coverup.
You also say, “For many of the GOP faithful, unwed pregnancy was a damnable sin yesterday.” The people who are into the whole scarlet letter thing are Democrats. Some of the rumors being spread on this story are the ugliest that I’ve ever seen in politics.
It’s unfortunate that you don’t show as much class as Barack Obama, who made a very clear statement that the families of candidates should be off-limits. He also pointed out that he himself was born to an 18 year-old mother.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 am
It is solid family values to stand behind and support their child in this matter than to try to sweep it under the rug with an ugly murder of life through abortion. This speaks well for the judgement of the Palins.
Jose, I believe you were the one who called me Bible (baptizing) thumping whatever; yet you are the one who is ready to brand with t THE letter. I’m certainly shocked with your lack of compassion. True colors always show in the long run.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I hope that every conservative who is now a born-again believer in the right of a teenager to become pregnant outside of wedlock, and to see it as a beautiful thing, will give the same consideration to Britney Spears’ teenage sister.
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Peach, what ARE you talking about? I’m willing to point out hypocrisies in the Religious Right but, doggone it, don’t snap at me for lacking compassion for a teenaged girl who is pregnant and unwed. Read again, Peach. I’m not damning her, but you can be danged sure that if it were Obama’s daughter who were preggers, the RR would be singing a much different tune. I feel awful sorry for Bristol Palin. It would be bad enough even without making international headlines. Let’s pray that she gets a lot of good support from her family. She’s gonna need it. Seventeen, pregnant, and the whole world, literally, is talking about you. That ain’t good.
Larry, you are right about the first item. I should have said that according to rules today, marital infidelities by a Democratic President are cause for federal investigation, and LYING about them are grounds for impeachment (Impeachment Article 1, Section 1). That begs the question of why he was under investigation for something that should have been a personal matter but, oh well.
On the other hand it’s just plain silly to say that Dems are the ones who make a big ruckus out of sexual escapades. (Are you calling Frank a Democrat just because he started this thread? Frank, are you going to take that?) This controversy is fed more by the National Inquirer and E!TV audience than by the DNC. The Dems are happy enough to stay out of the way and let the kerfluffle play out on its own. From the Left I hear a lot more Palin-bashing over matters of substance, like her lack of experience and her stances on policy (when she has them). As it should be.
You are right again about Obama taking the classy way out, though it’s not like he had any other politically correct response.
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Jose, as usual, you’re peddling half-truths. Congress did not initiate an investigation of Clinton’s infidelities. Paula Jones brought a sexual harassment case against Clinton, during the course of which he committed perjury and then obstructed justice by trying to block further investigation. That was how the Monica Lewinsky matter came to light. Are you taking the position that sexual harassment laws should be weakened or the President put above the law for actions taken before he was President? Otherwise, he’s obligated to testify truthfully when deposed.
The argument that Republicans would go after Obama’s daughters is without any foundation. Right now, there are questions about Joe Biden’s son’s actions as a lobbyist and you don’t see the Republicans bringing it up. The Democrats have a fondness for going after children. In 2004, both Kerry and Edwards made a point of bringing up Dick Cheney’s gay daughter. Another example is the snide comments made about John Roberts’ son when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
This “controversy”, as you call it, about the incredible news that a teenager got pregnant before marriage has been hyped by Democratic allies like Daily Kos, which has felt no restraint in spreading the most malicious rumors. Don’t try to pretend that the Democratic Party is not connected to Kos, when every Democratic Presidential candidate went to the Kos convention and paid homage.
The only thing you care about is partisan advantage no matter how much hypocritical nonsense you mouth about how bad you feel for the daughter.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 am
For many of the GOP faithful, unwed pregnancy was a damnable sin yesterday. Today it is a heartwarming and beautiful story, filled with love and redemption. Moral flexibility,
You wrote that Jose; you were not just damning teenage mothers but all unwed ladies–need I remind you Jesus’s mother was unwed at one time, and a lot of people wanted to stone her too. Any how, at the very least you are comparing a child of 17 to the actions of an adult man in his 50’s that is running a country–you should feel guilty and ashamed.
And while were are ‘at it’ I read in another article that this child was going to be married, and sincerely hope that the Palins think this matter through. There is no reason for her to marry at such a young age just to satisfy the country. She is already pregnant, and divorce would be hard on her latter on.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 am
The irony of all of this isn’t the fact that Palin’s daughter is 17 and pregnant, its the fact that teenage pregnancy is growing, not declining. Yes, we should accept the children, but we don’t need to promote it. Early childbirth promotes cervical cancer, Peach, correct me if I’m wrong on that. From appearances , it looks like the McCain is trying to get the vote not only from Hillary but from Barack too. I have nothing against this woman, but to think one day she could be president is a little to scary for me.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 am
Perplexed: I am not so sure about the early childbirth causing cervical cancer, more so that early sexual experiences means multiple partners in which (both male or females can carry the hpv) there is a greater possibility for the virus to spread.
Teenage pregnancy is been common since the 70’s–our generation. it became so common in the 80’s that most high schools provided childcare for the mothers within the schools. So Brittany, Bristol are just caring on a tradition–there is nothing new under the sun. This is the legacy that the flower children of the sixties passed on, and we have nobody to blame but ourselves. To make these children a product of scandal today, is meaningless, and to stigmatize these young girls by saying it is there own fault is archaic, there has to be two to tango.
September 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Peach, what they’re trying to say, I think, is that the religious right is guilty of hypocrisy of the highest degree. If Obama had a 17 year old daughter who was pregnant outside of wedlock, the evangelicals would be shouting from the rooftops that a man who can’t control his own household doesn’t need to be put in the White House.
But because it’s a white Republican whose daughter is pregnant, it’s suddenly the miracle of life, something reminiscent of Jesus’ own birth. Now personally, I agree with you, Peach, that what’s needed here is compassion and love for mother, baby, and husband to be. Though as an aside, she’s apparently five months pregnant, and everyone says she’s going to marry the father. Are they waiting for her to grow into her wedding dress or what? If McCain hadn’t been so quick to pull the trigger on her mother, she could have gotten married first and taken a lot of the teeth out of this. One hates to refer to a pregnant teenager like a pawn in a political game, but that’s what McCain has made her, and they could have played the situation a lot better.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I can readily understand that many in the Religious Right are sympathetic with Sarah Palin regarding the situation of her daughter’s pregnancy. After all, many of them have been there too–either in the role of the daughter or the parent.
What is more problematic for these self-proclaimed righteous ones is the blatant disregard for the clear Biblical guidelines for Christian women’s behavior. I Timothy chapter two is unambiguous about the clear demand that women must never be in a position of authority over men; must never speak out in public; must never wear expensive clothes, or gold, or pearls.
I’ve watched enough of the Religious Right Convention in St. Paul (named after the alleged author of I Timothy) to observe that they frequently: (1) speak in public–even addresing the nation on TV; (2) wear expensive clothes; (3) wear gold jewelry; (4) wear pearls; and (5) some even exercise authority over others–as Governors, Senators, Representative, Judges.
Is there some other plausible name for such behavior than HYPOCRISY?
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Peach, let’s grasp this teachable moment. I’ll fill in the gaps in my original post and you read it again, OK?
“For many of the GOP faithful, unwed pregnancy was a damnable sin yesterday. Today they view it as a heartwarming and beautiful story, filled with love and redemption. Moral flexibility on their part, I reckon.”
Now then, notice very carefully that I am commenting on the agile standards of the Palin supporters. There is no– I REPEAT NO– mention of my personal viewpoint on the matter of the Palin girl’s pregnancy. If you still can’t follow the grammatical flow then please just accept the fact that what you understood was not at all what I meant.
It’s enough work defending what I said. I sure as heck don’t have a lot of interest in defending what I didn’t say or mean.
September 4th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Asinus Gravis: Acts 2:17 17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
For daughters to prophecy-give a divinely or inspired message they must first speak in public-to men and women. Women speaking in public is Biblical as long as the the using of the voice is for the glory of God.
As for men, if they follow the following guidelines-then maybe women could stay at home and be the good little wife:
Exodus 34:21 work six days and rest on the seventh.
Proverbs 31:28 Praise the wife 9often would be helpful)
1 Corinthians 4:12 be faithful
Ephesians 5:26-28 Loves wife even as himself
Ephesians 6:4 to bring up children with love and a nurturing environment.
1 Colossians 3:19 not to be bitter or resentful
1 Timothy 3:2 husband of one wife
1 Timothy 5:8 the provider or breadwinner
Too many times man has thrown out how women are supposed to act yet fail to see the errors of their own ways. This is who Jesus called the hypocrites of his day; the Pharisees.
1 Peter 3:7 gives honor to wife
September 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Carol, Frank posted some months ago that scholars today think that the Pharisees got a bad rap in the bible.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Carol, you point to some other interesting passages of Scripture.
Some of them do point up the required role of men. None of them spell out any dispensation for women to take on the role of men in their patriarchal society in the even that a man fails to keep his role.
Some do point out leadership roles of women in early Christian congregations. 1 Timothy is clearly and sharply in conflict with that history; the text contradicts the fanti-sexist teachings of Paul, and the examples of outstanding women leaders that Paul cites in the letters that he wrote [unlike 1st and 2nd Timothy--which reflect the re-emergence of "good old boy" principles].
There is a similar sort of blatant contradiction between (1) the enthusiastic endorsement of Palin’s nomination by the Religious Right, and (2) those sizable segments of the Religious Right that, on the basis of 1st Timothy, demand that no woman be allowed to preach in their churches, or teach in their seminaries, or exercise authority in their families. They just are unwilling to let their “inerrant Word of God” get in the way of their politics.
September 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
September 5th, 2008 at 6:24 am
The religious right would have you believe that it is the woman’s responsibility is to stay at home and raise their children, when in fact most ancient customs, particularly in Jesus time, it was the man’s responsibility to see to it that the young (past the weaning stage) was properly raised according to the laws and customs.
The religious right would have you believe that women should not wear pants, when in fact trousers were not even invented until the late 1800’s to early 1900’s: so how could this custom be Biblically incorrect. In ancient time the wearing of opposite sex’s clothing which was a reference to effeminateism, which is a damnable offense (1 Corinthians 6:9)
The religious right would have you believe that women should stay at home and keep their mouths shut, when the Bible has Deborah leading a battle in Judges chapters 4-5; where was her husband, and why was he not judging the nation of Israel or leading the battle–was he a stay at home dad? did that make him any less a man?
What about Hillary? where was the religious right when she was running for President? Just because her child is older does that mean she is now free to run a country?
Is the religious right telling women that have a special needs child that they must stay home-when in fact it often takes two paychecks to make ends meet, especially in this day and age.
I asked in another blog-if the religious right does not believe that women should speak in church, and the Holy Spirit is upon a woman should she ‘quench’ the spirit which is a damnable offense per Bible?
I do believe the Bible is inerrant; it is the interpretation by the ‘religious right’ that makes it errant. Scholars and theologians only add to the problem, most often they give their own words which is for their own benefit. The general society is Biblically illiterate of their own choosing.