Crossposted at Docudharma and My Left Wing.
I've got to be with Wolcott on this one, who is apparently standing with Lawrence Auster on this one::
The issue is whether McCain should have chosen as his vice presidential running mate—and thus required the Republican party to approve that choice—a woman who has all these issues going on in her family.
...
McCain has put the conservative base in a position where it has to bend itself out of shape to maintain its support for the Republican ticket.
Now, I personally am delighted that McCain--maverick that he is--chose a candidate that, within hours of the selection, has exploded into a veritable pile of soap-opera-ish stories and sagas. I like watching the Right scramble about, trying to find new and exciting ways to justify their deeply held beliefs and morals (chuckle) with their unending quest for power.
But some have deemed portions of Palin's life to be "off limits," especially in the case of Bristol's pregnancy.
I have to vaguely disagree.
To quote Wolcott:
No, I don't want to see Bristol Palin persecuted by the media; leave her personally in peace.
Nor do I. I hope she finds happiness, I hope she has a healthy and bubbly little baby who will give her many years of joy and love and all that happy horseshit that parents yak at me about.
But we would be fools to completely ignore the situation, to pretend it doesn't exist. The situation we should be concerned about has nothing to do with Bristol's pregnancy, the status of her marriage or the various ironies people can find within.
The situation is--and should be--about McCain's judgment, especially towards base.
I'm not fan of Auster, but if you give a chimp enough paint and enough time, eventually he'll paint something wortwhile:
As I've already pointed out, the subject here is not the personal situation of Bristol. The subject is that a woman with Bristol's situation in her family should not be running for vice president.
I think this the most likely point at which some of you who are reading this will hurriedly dash to the comment section to call me an idiot or some such thing; if I may delay that action, however:
I personally do not think that the status of Palin's daughter disqualifies Palin's candidacy. I am a rational human being, knowing full well that kids are kids and that pregnancies occur. It says nothing about Palin's abilities as a mother, nor should it say anything about her capabilities to be Vice President.
However....
Reactions such as Auster's displays the foolishness and the division of McCain's base. Some are fine with this because she's not getting an abortion, which is all that truly matters and thus she's fine. Some are not fine with this because it speaks of morals they cannot support.
Auster himself goes on to say:
A woman with an illegitimately pregnant 17 year old daughter should have kept it private by not running for vice president.
Wow.
So, in a way, I think that Bristol's pregnancy is very relevant to the discussions at hand. Not on a personal level (joy, love, babies, etc.), but rather as an indication that McCain's judgment is so bad at this point that it could be legally deemed "biblically horrific."
He chose a Vice President who has numerous issues and "baggage" swirling around her and her family. Some of those issues are serious problems for his base, a base which he must actively shore up to even stay WITHIN within striking distance of Obama.
His judgment had been suspect within our circles for a long time. Now it's starting to be publicly suspect in HIS circles.
That's a big deal, and it makes Palin's family matters relevant in that respect.
Now, because I can't quite resist pointing out the absurdity of the Right, I'd like to end with two quotes, the first of which from Jack Tapper:
What would the response be if Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and his wife Michelle had a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter?
Wolcott's response is, as usual, focused and incisive:
I can answer that. Mona Charen, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin would sprout bat wings and fangs and start divebombing, Peggy Noonan would issue a pained sigh that would ruffle nun's robes from here to Hoboken, Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett would engage in a finger-wagging contest to condemn our loose licentious liberal culture, and Jennifer Rubin at Commentary's Contentions would crash into the wall doing cartwheels.
Indeed.