Balkinization: Family Values, Secession, and Patriotism: Where is That Fox News Exposé?

Comments:

The AIP is one of several groups which arose during the repeated sage brush rebellions out here in the West against federal control of the vast majority of the land in these states. They are simply demanding the same thing the states east of the Mississippi received - the relinquishment of federal control over most lands after they achieved statehood.

ANWR is a a great example of this. Alaska wants to develop their own resources like say West Virginia, but their federal overlords from other more populous states deny them that power.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:20 AM

Baghdad, why does your party's VP candidate hate America?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:04 AM

It is simply astounding that the Republican Party would pick a secessionist as its Vice Presidential candidate

# posted by

Mike Zimmer : 11:21 AM

"Bart" DePlama puts lipstick on the pig:

The AIP is one of several groups which arose during the repeated sage brush rebellions out here in the West against federal control of the vast majority of the land in these states. They are simply demanding the same thing the states east of the Mississippi received....

Wouldn't that be "... states south of the Mason-Dixon line demanded"? Let's be accurate for once. Why pussy-foot, around, "Bart"?, after all, there's plenty of Republicans that think the South got a raw deal....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:43 AM

Sarah Palin: Against the United States before she was for it.

# posted by

Michael Drake : 12:45 PM

Here's an idea for a sitcom:

A combination of Roseanne and Northern Exposure

based on the Palins.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 1:49 PM

Don't really see the point here. Fox is a partisan network - as is MSNBC on the other side of the aisle. They're not going to pick on Palin. That's the job of MSNBC, the New York Times, your blog, etc. You raise a fair question though - where's the outcry over her grandchild and the secession party membership? The answer is that liberal-leaning media outlets aren't so interested in family life or patriotism. They think that stuff is silly (this isn't a critique, so do I), so that's not how they choose to attack politicians they don't like. The frame they try to put conservative politicians in is always incompetence, stupidity, and provincialism. Making fun of Bush's gaffes (father and son), picking on his ranch, saying things like "Wasilla looks like an awesome town for a stop on the Iditarod and reminds me of the little towns Laura Ingalls and her Pa and Ma settled... the weather and whether to risk a trip to the next town for extra wheat during the Long Winter were their major problems (yes is the answer; otherwise they starve)" - this is how liberals choose to vilify conservative politicians. The problem with these types of attacks is that they're preaching to the choir. To those who hail from small towns themselves, misspeak on occasion, enjoy hunting, wish they owned their own ranch, think Laura Ingalls Wilder was a great literateur, these sorts of attacks backfire. On the other hand, attacking politicians' family life or their failure to wear flag pins does work. But you'll never see Keith Olbermann do a hit job on some Republican whose kids are pregnant because it'd be too hypocritical; he doesn't care about these things. Instead, he'll just keep picking on how small Wasilia is and only succeed in riling up the party faithful.

# posted by

Asher : 1:52 PM

Shag, I'm afraid it'll never work; Palin's bio is too over-the-top for television sitcom.

# posted by

Michael Drake : 2:55 PM

More ugliness from Balkinization. Apparently there is nothing more threatening to the academic class than a fecund female, except perhaps two.

We've had two presidents and a vice president with teenage and college-aged children, and I don't recall a lot of press attention to the sex lives of those children. What's different now? Well, the obvious difference is that Palin is a mother, not a father.

The McCain camp says that Palin has been registered as a Republican since 1982.

What is that causes a certain class of accomplished men to such depths as to ignore facts and make a 17-year-old girl the object of a political attack? What's wrong with you Jack? Have you no shame?

# posted by

Thomas : 3:19 PM

This is all a test of fealty for that band of one issue voters who collectively call themselves conservatives. But it is a tougher test than Iraq, torture, policizing Justice, wiretapping, secret gulags, tougher even than guns.

The faithful are being asked to foreswear everything on this one.

There are no do overs in the process. Everyone is on or off the bus. Declare yourself now.

# posted by

Porcupine_Pal : 3:31 PM

Hey, who among us hasn't toyed with idea of joining a secessionist movement? I feel an urge to do so every time they put George Bush in front of a microphone.

Bart, being a rugged westerner, probably belongs to two or three.

In my own case, only a cash-flow problem prevents me from rushing out and finding one of these parties to adhere to.

Further snark, just for Thomas. One unplanned pregnancy in a family is quite understandable. Things do occasionally go bump in the night. Two unplanned pregnancies in the same year, in the same family, could be just extremely bad luck -- or it could be indicative of a certain carelessness.

Whatever, nobody here but you cares about that. The issue is that those who would pitch a hissy fit if this were a Democratic party family are either totally silent about the above issues, or else they're pretzelizing themselves to approve.

I look forward to the next shoe to drop, because, if it does, somebody is going to break some bones trying to spin a further embarrassment into "just another example of how principled" and how it "illustrates what a good choice" Sarah Palin is.

# posted by

C2H50H : 3:42 PM

Jack, I note that C2h50h's scrutiny of the fertility of the Palin women is in accord with yours. "A certain carelessness." Classy place you got here, with strong opinions about the sexual and reproductive habits of women. This is what liberalism has become.

# posted by

Thomas : 3:50 PM

We've had two presidents and a vice president with teenage and college-aged children, and I don't recall a lot of press attention to the sex lives of those children. What's different now? Well, the obvious difference is that Palin is a mother, not a father.

Or it could be the even more obvious difference that Palin is anti-sex education/pro-abstinence and her teenage daughter is now pregnant. I suspect the snark would be virtually identical if Palin were a father.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 3:59 PM

Thomas,

I'm so sorry that I was unable to write clearly enough to overcome your problems with reading comprehension. I guess prefacing a comment with the warning that it's snark, and adding that nobody cares, isn't sufficient for you.

You can imagine the shame I feel.

Does that make it better?

# posted by

C2H50H : 4:07 PM

Thomas: I believe there is a link to an email address above that will allow you to request a full and complete refund.

# posted by

Eric : 4:23 PM

bartbuster, I don't buy it and I don't think you do either. The topic is relevant or irrelevant regardless of the policy stance taken by the parent. If a Clinton or Gore kid was sexually active at 17 and didn't have a pregnancy, that apparently would be relevant to demonstrate that the Clinton/Gore approach to sex education "works", right? So why didn't we see this sort of in-depth inquisition?

c2h50h, saying ugly things and then saying they clearly weren't meant because the label snark was attached? I see--you were kidding with the sexism! Some of your best friends are women!

eric, supposedly respectable people spouting off about a 17-year old girl exacts a very real price, and those who want to punish this girl should own their disgrace. I hope I'm helping them do that, without any charge.

# posted by

Thomas : 4:32 PM

So why didn't we see this sort of in-depth inquisition?

Because we didn't have to pry into their sexual lives to find out. The Palins decided to put their daughter's sex life out there for everyone to see. That seems so obvious that even a simpleton like you would realize the difference.

You can also be pretty sure that the rightwingnut attack machine (aka Fox News) would not have hesitated to tear into them if one of their unmarried daughters got pregnant.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 4:41 PM

Thomas,

Not everyone here is as sensitive to "sexism" as you apparently are. Perhaps you could explicitly point out, for the rest of us, just where, in my comments, I used a sexist statement?

# posted by

C2H50H : 4:49 PM

You can also be pretty sure that the rightwingnut attack machine (aka Fox News) would not have hesitated to tear into them if one of [Clinton/Gore's] unmarried daughters got pregnant.

Of course you could - Fox is the contemporary equivalent of a turn-of-the-century Republican tabloid. I don't get why people are so shocked, shocked, that certain media outlets are overwhelmingly biased. We could also say that if Palin went to AIPAC and said she was for an undivided Jerusalem, there'd be reams of stories in the Times and Post about how ridiculously uninformed she is and/or what a dishonest panderer she is. Obama did it and you didn't hear much of anything. That's just how the game is played these days.

# posted by

Asher : 4:52 PM

That's just how the game is played these days.

Like when the NYT attacked Bush's idiotic scheme to invade Iraq?

Oh, wait...

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:00 PM

Fox is a partisan network - as is MSNBC on the other side of the aisle.

Fox certainly is a partisan network. MSNBC, though, seems to me just a network which has a couple of partisan liberal shows (well, one right now and one to come).

More ugliness from Balkinization. Apparently there is nothing more threatening to the academic class than a fecund female, except perhaps two.

I fail to see the relevance of this statement as applied to Prof. Balkin's post. His post noted the extreme double standard which the right employs. That's a legitimate point; if you don't agree on the substance, then show that it's wrong.

# posted by

Mark Field : 5:09 PM

Bartbuster, what? Just how did the Palins put their daughter's sex life out for everyone to see? Obama supporters started a ridiculous rumor that Sarah Palin's youngest child wasn't really hers but was instead her grandson. That rumor, which is a rumor about both Sarah Palin and about her 17 year old daughter, was proved false, but inevitably the discussion required disclosure about Palin's daughter's current pregnancy. The whole story was started by Obama supporters and spread by Obama supporters and finally reported by Obama supporters in mainstream publications. And yet somehow it's Palin's fault.

c2h50, I'm sorry, is your question a serious one, or do you have your fingers crossed? If you're serious: "One unplanned pregnancy in a family is quite understandable. Things do occasionally go bump in the night. Two unplanned pregnancies in the same year, in the same family, could be just extremely bad luck -- or it could be indicative of a certain carelessness." It isn't only sexist of course--it's ugly for a variety of reasons.

# posted by

Thomas : 5:14 PM

but inevitably the discussion required disclosure about Palin's daughter's current pregnancy

That makes no sense at all. How did debunking that rumor make inevitable the disclosure that Palin's daughter is pregnant?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:17 PM

It isn't only sexist of course

How is it sexist?

it's ugly for a variety of reasons.

More ugly than calling welfare recipients "welfare queens"?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:20 PM

This is a sad, sad day for everyone associated with the American Institute of Physics (AIP).

Another blow against science by the Republican party.

[Not entirely joking]

# posted by

S.G.E.W. : 5:24 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

C2H50H : 5:37 PM

Thomas,

My question was serious. Your reply indicates that you think (as I, most emphatically, do not!) that any unplanned pregnancies are totally the fault of the woman involved, because otherwise there was no sexism in my comment.

You are just trying to claim, rather blatantly, that any criticism involving Sarah Palin is "sexism."

Are you a "McCain blog outreach" operative?

# posted by

C2H50H : 5:40 PM

Thomas, not sure that someone supporting a guy who made this joke is in all that strong moral position to be castigating others about their insensitivity toward a candidate's children.

# posted by

Michael Drake : 6:18 PM

To his credit, Jake Trapper bothered to check out and correct his erroneous report on this latest Dem slime job.

Professors, if you care at all about getting the facts correct rather than spreading around the latest Obama campaign lies, you might want to wait 24 hours for them to be debunked.

Given the near hysterical and vicious attacks on Governor Palin, the Dems must be scared sh-tless about her affect on the race.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 7:08 PM

Welcome to the bonus round, Thomas. Now, the final question: which comment is more sexist?

1. "I noticed there was a beauty pageant, so I encouraged my wife to compete."

2. "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollup, you cunt."

3. "The French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."

4. "Two unplanned pregnancies in the same year could be indicative of a certain carelessness."

Waiting music can be found here.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 7:39 PM

Welcome address to the 2008 AIP convention.

"Keep up the good work." Nice message to the secessionists.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 7:59 PM

Bart,

Yeah, she wasn't a member, just attended the convention with her husband, who was a long-time member.

So where's the discussion of his patriotism, ala what they did to Michele Obama?

# posted by

C2H50H : 8:03 PM

So quoting the hearsay reports of a far-right organization that Palin's husband belongs to, to the effect that Palin herself belonged to the same organization, is a "Dem smear job." I did not know that.

And what an awful smear it would be to say that Palin belonged to an organization her husband would belong to, and to which she's only lent aid and comfort.

Anyway, I guess as amended, Jack Balkin's hypothetical would be to consider how things would turn out for Obama did Michelle belong to a like organization. This obviously makes a material difference to the outcome. Not.

As to Palin's expected "affect" on the race, it wouldn't appear that she's having all that positive an impact.

# posted by

Michael Drake : 8:10 PM

bartbuster, once the campaign is forced to discuss whether Palin's minor daughter, rather than Palin, had borne Trig, the campaign was, as a practical matter, forced to discuss the reproductive status of Palin's minor daughter. Anything less would likely be characterized as a misleading omission.

Mark, Jack didn't note a double standard, he employed it. And, more relevantly, he employed it to attack a 17 year old girl. You're not suggesting that Jack would find these sort of attacks relevant if they were to have come from the other side are you? Of course not.

c2h50h, you apparently believe that it is relevant to Palin's fitness for the VP how and why Palin and her daughter became pregnant. No man is ever subjected to these sort of questions. Ever. So, yes, your comment is sexist.

PMS, what do we know about McCain and certain liberal bloggers? That when McCain was faced with his VP choice he chose a woman, and that his liberal critics responded with sexist and demeaning criticisms.

# posted by

Thomas : 8:54 PM

For the third, and last, time: in fact, I do not believe that the status of Sarah Palin's daughter is relevant to her fitness to be VP. I don't care about it at all, in fact.

I do, however, believe that the fact that the McCain campaign trotted this out indicates that they didn't vet Sarah Palin properly -- and that reflects very poorly on the fitness of John McCain to be president.

Things are not sexist just because you say they are. In fact, based on your comments, I'd say that reality and your statements are completely uncorrelated.

# posted by

C2H50H : 9:09 PM

c2h40h, two things: first, your comments above strongly suggest you find the subject relevant, and, second, if, as you now say, it isn't relevant, then why would McCain have taken it into account? Because he's sexist? Well, obviously he isn't.

# posted by

Thomas : 9:33 PM

Mark, Jack didn't note a double standard, he employed it. And, more relevantly, he employed it to attack a 17 year old girl.

That reading of his post is just silly and partisan. How could one ever argue that there's a double standard without noting an apparent contradiction between one side's behavior and the other side's? It's an essential element of the argument.

# posted by

Mark Field : 9:34 PM

PMS, what do we know about McCain and certain liberal bloggers? That when McCain was faced with his VP choice he chose a woman, and that his liberal critics responded with sexist and demeaning criticisms.

Show me one. So far your idea of sexism is anything that mentions gender--your sensitivity is set so high that epiphenomena like family planning become metonymy.

What I do know from repeated example is that the leaders of the so-called conservative movement have been sexist much more explicitly (as the above McCain quotes demonstrate amply), and I don't need to read such a "conservative" lecture me about the finer points of political correctness. Physicians, heal yourselves.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 10:26 PM

PMS, I don't recall talking about the contraceptive choices of any other candidates. What have I missed? As for who the perpetrators are: there are two here, Jack and Sandy.

Mark, if Sandy needed to attack a 17 year old high school girl to make a really rather trite political point, he's got no business teaching at a law school. My God, are his rhetorical skills truly that weak? Do they hire just any old liberal at Yale these days? (Don't answer that.)

# posted by

Thomas : 11:16 PM

Mark, if Sandy needed to attack a 17 year old high school girl to make a really rather trite political point

I agree that doing so would be reprehensible. In fact, the first thing I did this morning was write a letter to the LA Times criticizing them for their coverage of the pregnancy. But this post is NOT an attack.

# posted by

Mark Field : 11:41 PM

According to his email and bio, Sandy teaches at the University of Texas, but let's not get facts in the way of our general political view.

# posted by

Stephenson : 11:44 PM

stephenson, of course you are correct. I meant to refer to Jack, who finds the story of Palin's daughter to be politically useful, not Sandy, who is merely sexist, not monstrous.

# posted by

Thomas : 12:02 AM

Thomas:

Apparently there is nothing more threatening to the academic class than a fecund female, except perhaps two.

Huh?!?!? Care to explain exactly who is "threten[ed]" here (and why)?

If you want the honest truth, Thomas, I suspect that most of us are bemused if not outright amused by the Palin Saga....

What turns our stomachs is the hypocritical and stoopid Republican sycophants, twisting and turning and trying to find ways that their candidate is "different, so it doesn't count...."

And JOOC, do you think the earth is 6000 years old? Should that be what we teach the chilluns?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:49 AM

Thomas:

Jack, I note that C2h50h's scrutiny of the fertility of the Palin women is in accord with yours. "A certain carelessness."

OIC. News to me. You mean that Sarah Palin's daughter wanted to get pregnant at seventeen and before marriage?!?!?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:53 AM

Thomas:

What is that causes a certain class of accomplished men to such depths as to ignore facts and make a 17-year-old girl the object of a political attack?

Google "Chelsea Limbaugh dog". Or "McCain Chelsea ugly Reno".

Then come back and tell us what makes people attack other totally innocent people.

That was a much younger girl too.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 1:58 AM

MSNBC, though, seems to me just a network which has a couple of partisan liberal shows (well, one right now and one to come).

MSNBC is so partisan that they picked sides in the Democratic primary. Once in a while Chris goes off the reservation and says something bigoted to balance out his Obama shilling, but it seems pretty one-sided to me.

# posted by

Asher : 3:53 AM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 7:58 AM

tray:

MSNBC is so partisan that they picked sides in the Democratic primary. Once in a while Chris goes off the reservation and says something bigoted to balance out his Obama shilling, but it seems pretty one-sided to me.

Yeah. I bet they even endorse all those Dummycrats that are disgraced or indicted that Faux Snooze puts up there on the screen with a scroller that says they're "Democrats".... Oh, waidaminnint.... "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... <*ummm*> <*uhhhh*> ... won't get fooled again."

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 8:00 AM

Levi puck-ers up:

"I nailed the hockey mom Governor's daughter!"

How big is the "hockey mom" vote in the Bible (Chastity?) Belt?

This is a political battle but somehow a hockey game broke out. Icing?

And Sarah wants to go on a polar bear hunt. Here's how:

Cut a hole in the ice, about 3 feet in diameter. Then ring the ice hole with peas. Hide behind a snow bank until a polar bear comes to take a pea and kick it in the ice hole.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 8:18 AM

# posted by

Bartbuster : 9:07 AM

It is almost surreal for a McCain supporter to be lecturing anyone about sensitivity toward the children of political candidates. McCain's almost unbelieably ugly Chelsea joke ("almost" because, well, we're talking about McCain, here) has been cited twice now, so there's no way anyone could miss it -- not that there was any wau a modestly informed political observer could have been ignorant of it long before this thread started.

Why don't you give it a rest.

# posted by

Michael Drake : 10:23 AM

Bart writes:
They are simply demanding the same thing the states east of the Mississippi received - the relinquishment of federal control over most lands after they achieved statehood.

The AIP wants, from their website:

"The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1. Remain a Territory.
2. Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3. Accept Commonwealth status.
4. Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, that Alaskans achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, and promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."

# posted by

John : 10:25 AM

PMS, I don't recall talking about the contraceptive choices of any other candidates.

Yes, I do wonder what Mr. McCain and Mr. Biden use, don't you? You don't understand that gender is irrelevant to the question (perhaps unfairly) posed by those who see unplanned pregnancies as signs of irresponsibility. If one of Obama's daughters were five months pregnant (and an appropriate age for such a state), we wouldn't be wagging our fingers at Michelle, we'd wag them firmly at Barack as the family's public representative. How can one be a moral leader of a country if they can't maintain moral discipline in the home? (Thomas, is this line of reasoning really unfamiliar to you?)

That's the essence of debates about family values on the national stage. It's why we don't like adulterers (if they break their promise to their spouse, how can we be sure they won't break the promises they made us?) or divorced candidates (why is it so hard for Guiliani to break into national politics?)

If the Palins can't raise their daughter to know right from wrong, how can we expect them to run the august offices of the Presidency and "first dude"?

If the Palins are willing to cozy up with separatists for political advantage and social networking, how can we truly expect them to put America first when they succeed McCain?

You may think these questions are sexist, but they're not. They may be nosy, they may be inappropriate, but given the trajectories of previous elections, I see no reason why the questions are a priori out-of-bounds.

# posted by

PMS_CC : 10:43 AM

bartbuster, this is absurd. The simplest and most direct refutation of the assertion that Trig was borne by Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is that it is biologically impossible for someone who is five months pregnant to be the mother of a four month old. In any case, the Obama camp's lie was a lie not just about Sarah Palin, but about her daughter.

PMS, I find your last comment bizarre. Do you mean any of it?

# posted by

Thomas : 11:58 AM

The issue, for me, is that even in the face of blatantly obvious evidence to the contrary, Palin still chooses to toe the neocon line on abstinence.

To me, this shows the same disdain for reality and fact when it conflicts with ideology shown time and time again by the current administration. There is little that infuriates me more than intentional ignorance.

It also seems sexist to me to assume that it's better for a woman to (ostensibly)live her entire life married to a man as the result of an accident than to allow her to raise the child on her own. Again, actions being dictated by ideology rather than reasonable thinking.

# posted by

Kenny B. : 12:39 PM

The simplest and most direct refutation of the assertion that Trig was borne by Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is that it is biologically impossible for someone who is five months pregnant to be the mother of a four month old.

So fucking what? There were OTHER ways it could have been debunked, or it could have been ignored. The Palins, and no one else, chose to make their daughter's situation public.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 1:03 PM

Kenny, again, using Palin's daughter as an excuse to make partisan points is an ugly and unneecessary thing to do. And in any case you're assuming a connection that just isn't there. Palin presumably discussed contraceptive options with her daughter, who presumably was aware of those options as all of us are. Knowledge of the various options doesn't in itself prevent pregnancy. Just ask John Edwards.

bartbuster, You apparently don't see anything wrong with the Obama camp placing Palin's daughter in the line of fire, and want to blame the Palin camp for responding to the vicious lies your friends are spreading with the truth. Blaming the victim has a long and glorious history, but your little contribution to that history is noted.

# posted by

Thomas : 4:12 PM

You apparently don't see anything wrong with the Obama camp placing Palin's daughter in the line of fire

The Obama camp did no such thing. Some bloggers spread some rumors about her. Given that Karl Rove once spread rumors about McSame having an illegitimate black child, I guess they figured it was ok to play the same games that you scumbags play.

and want to blame the Palin camp for responding to the vicious lies your friends are spreading with the truth

I did no such thing. You made an idiotic attempt to blame the Dems for a decision that was clearly made by the Palin family.

Blaming the victim has a long and glorious history, but your little contribution to that history is noted.

Note away. After the last 7 years, I would cheerfully burn your party to the ground. Your opinion means nothing to me.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 4:31 PM

Thomas:

Palin presumably discussed contraceptive options with her daughter,....

Yes. From her record, it went like this: "Well, there's abstinence ... and there's -- ummm, abstinence ... and then there's also -- well, abstinence.... Just don't do it!"

Which worked just as well as studies have shown such an approach works....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:25 PM

Thomas:

You apparently don't see anything wrong with the Obama camp placing Palin's daughter in the line of fire, and want to blame the Palin camp for responding to the vicious lies your friends are spreading with the truth....

Outside of His Emanence Rushbo (the Viagra Queen of the Dominican Republic), and InsHannity, and the likes of Freeperville, what evidence do you have that the "Obama camp" was planting "vicious lies"?

You keep saying it, but repeated assertion in not a valid argument.

And I would liek your view on McCain's and Limbaugh's comments on Chelsea Clinton. Can we dismiss these comments as not the doing of eminent Republicans? Did some malevolent mind-meld from Satanic daemons force these august personalities to emit those vile and hateful comments against their will and judgment?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:32 PM