Is it likely that Palin would have accepted the running mate job with a pregnant daughter?

Nine

(472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Sep-03-08 08:36 AM
Original message

Is it likely that Palin would have accepted the running mate job with a pregnant daughter?

Many of you seem certain that McCain didn't know about the pregnant daughter. That means Palin would have deliberately kept it from the McCain team. Does that really sound plausible? What do you think her intentions would have been? To surprise McCain with the news later on? To keep Bristol and eventual baby in hiding indefinitely? Neither of those is plausible. True, it doesn't make sense that McCain would have chosen her had he known. If his intention was to appeal to the fundie base, why would he choose someone who was such a blatant example of the FAILURE of abstinence only sex ed? Why wouldn't they have scrubbed Levi's blog and his sister's beforehand? Why wouldn't they have announced the pregnancy from the start so that they could at least tout it as, "see? she's keeping the baby!" instead of having to appear as though they were ashamed of it? No, it's impossible to believe that McCain knew anything about a pregnant teen. But it's equally impossible to believe that Palin knew and would withhold that information from McCain. Can anyone really argue otherwise?

The only plausible explanation is that Bristol ISN'T pregnant. Trig is Bristol's, and Palin thought she could get away with pretending Trig is hers. The McCain people didn't know about it because they didn't do any research. This is damage control, and Bristol will eventually have a "miscarriage". Why isn't she marrying Levi now? What are they waiting for?

McCain isn't planning to carry out this deception forever. He is going to drop Palin. And soon. And then those who are looking into all this are going to have a much harder time. People will have lost interest. If it is eventually exposed, it won't hurt McCain nearly as badly after he's already dropped her. And the people still looking into it will be much easier to paint as "meanies" who just want to pry into the life of a teenage girl whose mother isn't even playing a role on the national political stage anymore. Right now, we are in a race with McCain. Can we get this scandal exposed before he finds a way to drop her with the least political damage? If we let this opportunity pass by, those of us with any sense are going to be kicking ourselves. We will have given up our best chance to make this election a slam dunk and to strike a blow against the religious right and the GOP in general that will last a very long time.

I see people repeatedly talking about not wanting to take the "low road." And even many of the ones who support pursuing this seem to be accepting that there is something ethically questionable about it and that it's justified only by the ends. But I disagree. I don't see anythig about this that qualifies as the "low road." Low BROW perhaps, but not low road. No one has put forth an ethics based argument as to why this would be a wrong thing to do. If we avoid this simply because it seems too sensationalistic and not intellectual enough, then I guess the Republicans are right and we really are just "elitists." Maybe this is all a bit Jerry Springerish for your taste, but we're not the ones who created the situation. And remember, the Jerry Springer show is very popular. It's true that Republicans wouldn't have a moment's hesitation in pursuing this if the situation were reversed, but I don't base my actions on what Republicans would do. I have my own moral compass, and there is nothing about pursuing this that hurts my conscience. The one aspect of it that would have given me pause disappeared the moment they threw Bristol to the wolves.

And if we're talking ethics, how can any of you sit there and say it's ethical or right to let Bristol and Trig be made a part of this deception? We know this sort of thing used to happen all the time and it caused a lot of pain for all involved. At least back then it was somewhat justifiable because of the stigma placed on unwed mothers and the children they bore. But in this case the only thing Palin was thinking about was her own political career. It's unfortunate this can't be looked into without involving Bristol and Trig to some extent, but I look at it this way: suppose we had a candidate who was accused of molesting or abusing his/her kids. I'd want to find out the truth even if it unfortunately meant the children's privacy would have to be compromised a bit. And this is a much less invasive situation. And it IS abusive is a sense.

I don't think this is some well-hidden plot that we'll never be able to find the truth about. I think a lot of the pieces are already known. All we really need to do is start putting it all together until the truth of it becomes undeniable. Please. I'm begging you. Do not let this opportunity slip through our fingers. Do not turn a blind eye to a situation that can cause two minors a lot of heartache simply because you don't want to dirty. Dirty isn't necessarily bad or immoral. Sometimes it just means you're willing to do the work.