A brilliant Sarah Palin commentary

palin trig

Appeared today on Litbrit, Deborah Newell Tornello’s site.

I’ve pasted it below—just perfect, and telling. I’m not a fan of beating up on female public figures because of their sex. It happens all the time, and it’s bulls***. But this is fair game—and Palin knows it.

I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I’m really not. But I’m 40/60 that the baby isn’t really Palin’s.

Anyhow, here you go …

Sarah Palin chose (B): Ten questions for mothers

Reader Jim (aka Prup), a friend and frequent commenter at Cogitamus–and someone who does have a few differences with me about Sarah Palin’s motivations as well as those of the mainstream media journalists who to this day have not investigated the ex-governor’s strange, inconsistency and lie-filled stories* surrounding what has come to be known as Babygate–has written a terrific set of questions designed to get Palin supporters thinking.**

Thank you, Jim. Take it away…

Ten Questions for Sarah Palin’s supporters who are also mothers:

1. If you were a state governor who was eight months pregnant–and remember, Sarah Palin already knew hers was a high-risk pregnancy because of her age (44) and, according to her book, her baby having been diagnosed via amniocentesis as having Down syndrome–and you were scheduled to fly some 4,000 miles from home to give a speech at a conference, would you (a) give your speech from home via teleconferencing, using modern real-time technology, and explain to your hosts that the high-risk nature and advanced stage of your pregnancy made you reluctant to fly; or, alternatively, send the deputy governor to give your speech or (b) dismiss any staff or security slated to fly with you and insist on flying 4,000 miles to the conference yourself?

Sarah Palin chose (b).

2. If, while attending this conference, you experienced leaking amniotic fluid and felt early contractions on the morning before you were scheduled to speak, would you (a) hand the speech to someone else, ask him or her to give it on your behalf, and go straight to the nearest hospital–one that was equipped for handling high-risk mothers, premature births, and special-needs infants–and get yourself checked out by a doctor or (b) continue with your day and give the speech anyway?

Sarah Palin chose (b).

3. After giving the speech, would you then, immediately afterward, (a) go directly to the nearest suitably-equipped hospital or (b) insist on going to the airport and proceed to get on the first of two several-hours-long commercial flights–airplanes on board which there would be no lifesaving equipment or stored blood should you go into hard labor and experience pre-eclampsia or hemorrhage, no sterile environment, and no high-risk obstetrician attending you–in order to be able to say the baby was born in your home state?

Sarah Palin chose (b).

4. At the conclusion of that first flight, would you then, upon landing and deplaning, (a) go directly to the nearest hospital in the connecting city as fast as possible, even commandeering MediVac transport if necessary or (b) take another flight lasting several hours, in order to continue heading home?

Sarah Palin chose (b).

5. At the conclusion of the second flight, would you (a) go immediately to either of two nearby hospitals with fully equipped NICU’s (neonatal intensive care units), or (b) embark on a one-hour drive through dark, snowy, and winding roads in order to get to your hometown regional hospital–a facility that is not equipped to handle high-risk pregnancies, special needs or premature babies, or even twins?

Sarah Palin chose (b).

6. If you were the governor of a state and the mother of two teenage daughters–and you were well-known and widely regarded for your espousing of conservative Christian family values–would you (a) make a special effort to impress upon your daughters the responsibilities they had as members of the state’s “First Family” or (b) allow one of your underage daughters to have her boyfriend “practically living in the house”, fully aware they were having sexual relations, which fact would eventually be established in no uncertain terms when the two teens conceived a pregnancy?

Sarah Palin chose (b).

7. If, in addition to your to your seventeen-year-old and thirteen-year-old daughters, your household also included a seven-year-old daughter, and both girls would certainly be aware of their older sister’s boyfriend’s routine overnight stays–the elder one undoubtedly knowing the reason for same–would your answer to the last question (a) change or (b) remain the same.

Sarah Palin chose (b).

8. Upon your return to the office, when your premature infant is three days old, would you (a) keep him at home in the care of a baby nurse, where he can receive UV light treatment for his jaundice along with careful monitoring, should he develop any complications due his congenital heart defect; and as your staff will be excited for you, take some family baby pictures to work, thus avoiding the dangers of exposing such a vulnerable baby to the germ-filled environment of your office or (b) bring him with you to the office so you can show him off for photo opportunities?

Sarah Palin chose (b).

9. If, when your infant with special needs was a few months old, you were to be offered a high-ranking position–say, the vice presidential slot on the Republican ticket–which would entail your being away from home for a few months and place you squarely in the limelight of a high-profile campaign; and at approximately the same time as this offer was made, you were to discover that your minor daughter was pregnant, would you (a) politely decline the position, citing ‘family reasons’, and set about protecting your daughter’s privacy as your family worked through the situation and planned the best course of action for your child and future grandchild, doing your best to deflect unwanted press attention all the while or (b) accept the position “without blinking”, and then parade your entire family–including your obviouly pregnant minor daughter and her boyfriend–into the bright lights and onto the international stage of the Republican Convention?

Sarah Palin chose (b).

10. Does Sarah Palin embody your definition of “Family Values?”

(a) yes or (b) no. And you choose..?

13 thoughts on “A brilliant Sarah Palin commentary”

  1. The most popular girl in high school was dumb as hell. All that mattered was that she was attractive. Scary that politics is like that too.

  2. I wonder if we could also make one of these quizzes for Al Gore, John Edwards, the Clintons, Ted Kennedy, or anyone else that ever made decisions that could possibly be second guessed. Jeff, do you think politicians should be judged on the quality of their ideas or strictly on decisions they make in their private day-to-day lives?

    1. Brian, I think the fact that she hangs her hat on family values makes this very legit. Save for Edwards, the ultimate fraud, never heard Gore, Bill, Hill or Ted try to legislate morality.

  3. Palin has not made the “family values” schtick as front and center in her public life as some politicians have. Gore did make his supposed love and loyalty to his wife a prominent feature in his 2000 Presidential campaign. And Bill did sign the original Defense of Marriage Act, Jeff. Just sayin’….

    1. Brian, I’m sorry, but Palin toted that kid around like luggage; had Levi cleaned up and shipped to the Repub convention; talks repeatedly about the sanctity of marriage, blah, blah

  4. And Gore and the Clintons never carted their kids around to conventions and speeches for maximum photo ops? They never gave flowery talks about how much they loved their spouse? They don’t oppose gay marriage every bit as much as Palin does??!
    Sarah Palin is hungry for power and attention, wants to cover up personal flaws from her and her family’s past and, perhaps, more committed to her work than her family….just like every other successful politician ever in history. Plenty of politicians in our history have missed births of their children or made wreckless decisions about their family lives or strayed on their spouses, and most children of prominent politicians have made a fair amount of stupid decisions and mistakes. Even the most radical Christian does not think that parents can control every decision that their teenage children make.
    Also, everyone that runs for President or Vice President or governor or any other position of political media importance parades their families in the spotlight to try to show how average they are and to try to win votes.
    How is Sarah Palin bringing her kids to the convention any different or worse than Obama bringing his daughters to a convention??!
    So, Jeff, why should she be singled out on these types of decisions when others of the opposite gender are essentially given a free pass?
    If you want to say you disagree with her ideology, that is fair. If you don’t think she is qualified to be President, that is a subject of fair debate. However, to judge her purely on her personal life and the way she raises her kids, when all you know about it is what you pick up from biased media reports, sorry, but I think that is quite sexist and a bit of a low and classless blow.

    1. WHAT!? I can’t even fathom this debate. I really can’t. This isn’t even remotely sexist—I’ve ripped Mitt for being a fraud, too. Quite regularly. But she preaches morality in ays the other politicians never had. Seriously, while Gore and Clinton were against gay marriage, how often did you ever hear them actually bring it up? And how passionately. No comparison. Brian. None.

  5. Mitt can fairly be called a fraud because of shifts in public political positions that he has taken and because of misguided actions he took when he was governor. His “fraud” has nothing to do with his personal life or members of his family, so, yes, it’s fair game.
    However, singling out someone’s family is not, I don’t think, fair game, unless you’re willing to hold EVERY politician to exactly the same standard. And if you examined every politician’s family with the size of the microscope that left-wingers apply to the Palins, not many of them would fare very well at all.
    Because she is a woman, people blame her much more directly for the actions of her kids than they would judge, say, Al Gore for his kid getting arrested for drug possession or Ronald Reagan for his daughter doing drugs or posing in “Playboy”. There is certainly a double standard involved in the kind of dissection that the Palins have undergone in the mainstream media.
    And I will submit that that politicians like Clinton, Gore and Obama taking direct legislative actions that directly prevent homosexuals getting married, while not publicly talking about it and openly courting the support of the gay community is far more insidious and hypocritical than most any action than Palin has ever engaged in.

Leave a Reply