Under what circumstances (if any) is a candidate's daughter's unplanned presidency "fair game" in an election?

Question

And if it is, does that mean we should know whether there have been unplanned pregnancies for ANY candidate's daughter, even if the pregancy was terminated? Do we also need to know the method of birth control used (if any) in each case?

Or it it all a private matter?

What are your thoughts? thanks.

Answer 1

Well, it doesn't. Funny that Liberals, and Obama supporters should want to attack Sarah Palin for what her daughter is responsible for. Are they just mad the daughter won't abort it?

I wonder why these same attackers still let their own daughters admire Jamie Spears, Britney's sister, who is under age, had her baby, and was dating an adult.

Liberal double-standards are insane!

Answer 2

None

Answer 3

While it is obviously something that normally should be dealt with privately and personally, especially as there is a serious risk of political-backlash for focusing more attention on this girl, there is something to be looked at on a more general level.

For a party that promotes "traditional family values" the idea that an unmarried 17-year-old daughter of the Vice Presidential nominee is pregnant raises some questions about that person.  It has been interesting to see the response from people like James Dobson of Focus on the Family who have lauded the girl's decision to keep the child, marry the father, etc.  To me it seems like spinning an event that, if it was one of Obama's daughters (or any other Democratic candidate) they would jump all over the candidate, even if the girl decided to keep the baby.  It would be considered a sign of poor liberal values undermining the traditional family structure.  The question here is the amount of hypocrisy involved and goes to show you that no matter your personal political leanings s*#t happens and people should be treated fairly, regardless of their political label, race, or sexual preferences.

Answer 4

The ONLY way I see her becoming "fair game", would be if Bristol Palin were used by Palin or the McCain campaign as an "example" of what the Republicans ideal outcome is if a teenager gets pregnant (raise the child and marry the father), instead of any of the other options.

However, I would hope that Palin, as her mother, would sure that no one in the McCain campaign, with authorization or not, brings this up as a campaign point.  If they do, it's fair game, but I really don't expect this to happen at all.

So I don't expect this to become an issue either way.

Answer 5

Why do Republicans want privacy now... They are always against privacy rights.

We can discuss Palin's daughter because her mother advocates "abstinence" s*x education. Don't you think some birth control would have helped here?

Answer 6

I said this in a similar question and I will say it again. Teen pregnancy is a family issue that holds no bearing on the candidates themselves. People are acting like she could have stopped her daughter from doing what she did when we all know that teenagers will do what they want to do regardless of what they've been taught if they really want to. I know I did, and I'm sure some of you up here have as well. It is a tasteless and shameful stab at Palin during a very difficult time in her families life. If this is the best they can do, then that is very sad.

Answer 7

It is nobodys business!!!!!!!  Any person who deigns cast aspurgence on a child SUCKS!

Answer 8

Then the candidate should not make a public announcement about it if it is a private matter.  

Answer 9

Can you even imagine the smear-fest cons would have if Obama's daughter got pregnant not mention if she had an abortion.  Cons would be launched into the stratosphere.

If it was a private matter, then said candidate should not have announced it to the media.

Answer 10

When the candidate supports 'abstinence only' s*x education.

If you can't see the irony there, then I can't help you.

Answer 11

It is a very private matter, just as Edwards' affair was.

Answer 12

It is an important matter if that party likes to act as if this never happens to them.

Answer 13

when you preach "morals" and such like Palin it should be fair game.  Isn't this the sort of thing she is running on, no s*x b4 marriage, 0 tolerance for abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or risk to Mothers health.  Palin has lost her credibility now. how is she going to promote these views to American women and girls when she can't keep her minor children in check

Answer 14

I don't believe so, if it were true things would have been discussed about Obama and his birth to an unwed mother.  It is ridiculous to make comments on this or other quite persnal matters.  This issue should not be up for public discussion.

This is mudslinging at it's worst.

~

Answer 15

It's not.  I for one have never attacked a Democratic politician's family or children because it's not an issue.  Never have I seen so much hypocrisy displayed on this board.  These blood-thirsty hounds are using the excuse that her personal beliefs give them the right to do this.  Never has she forced her private beliefs onto the constituents in her own home state, nor has she attempted to.  In fact, she's actually been more social and if anything has fought the republicans in her own state.

But these people see this as a "story" and since they have such a poor candidate, they have a tough, if not impossible time to discuss issues because of his own inexperience and having a zero track record other than the ability to speak (with a teleprompter), and having some decent handlers.

This is nothing more than empty rhetoric and bashing, something that they're good at because apparently they have nothing else to do and obviously nothing better to say.

Answer 16

When the candidate advocates abstinence-only education and is against comprehensive s*x education.  

This is nationwide problem and our statistics regarding teen pregnancies are appalling in comparison to other industrialized countries that have extensive s*x education and readily available birth control.  

Answer 17

Under the circumstances that the candidate advocates educational policy for children that refuses to teach said children how to keep themselves safe and responsible by using birth control.

Read for yourself how much money is dumped into abstinence-only education in this country - AND IT DOESN'T WORK. It harms our children and encourages ignorance.

And these same people act like their rotten, religious-ideological s*x education policies have no connection whatsoever to teen pregnancy, or their own pregnant teen daughters. Bullsh*t.

_________

Um, Edwards was not going about trying to legislate who people can have s*x with and who people can marry like the Republicans are.

_________

"Never has she forced her private beliefs onto the constituents in her own home state, nor has she attempted to.": Yes, in fact, she has. She has been nothing but supportive of receiving federal funds for abstinence-only s*x-ed programs, funds which many other states (CA, WI) have rejected because this type of education is garbage and has been soundly debunked in study after study. Abstinence-only s*x ed is based on the idea that s*x before marriage - s*x in general - is wrong in the Christian Church. It is forcing one's religious beliefs onto health education, demanding censorship of certain types of health information in the service of one's religious beliefs.

Looks like the abstinence-only kids are sexually active just like everybody else. As though Republicans thought we didn't already know it.

Answer 18

Not fair game. It is a private matter.  

Answer 19

This situation has no bearing on the abilities of the VP candidate, therefore should not be brought into any political discussion.  The matter is totally a family one and should be able to be dealt with privately.  

It only seems to be a problem when the amoral libs find out that something of this nature happens to the moralistic conservatives.  It's like since the conservatives are willing to make a moral stance any deviation from that is hypocritical (by the way we all break our morals at one point or another); meanwhile the libs hold few if any moral stances so when they act in such a manner they can claim that they broke no moral "rules".  I'd rather have someone with morals who goofs up-like all of us do- than one who claims loose, few, or no morals and then preaches these at me like so many libs seem to do.