Problems with Palin & Abstinence Training

The McCain camp is coming out swinging hard. I understand (if I don't totally agree) that the personal lives of candidates should be off limits. But what I've seen is journalists asking questions about her lack of experience are getting snapped back at. If she is the reformer, outsider - journalists should have the right ascertain if the label "neophyte" is also applicable.

The next issue is her daughter. Look, early pregnancies happen all the time - I'm not going to judge that actions of teenagers. What I will be critical of is Palin's staunch pro-abstinence education stance. It didn't work here, and it doesn't work in most places. In 3rd world countries, its even less relevant. Children can be a blessing for the right people, but if they aren't, there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. And I haven't heard of people who are applauded for deciding to keep their STDs.

Abstinence is lifestyle decision. You can't enforce it - I was listening to NPR this morning and a female delegate interviewed was quoted as defending Palin's stance, saying essentially: Look you can teach it, but kids go off and make their own decisions. Exactly; but then what is the point? So that you have the moral self satisfaction of leading the horse to water, and then be blase about the fact that it died of thirst in front of the trough? Bravo.

As a parent, if you want to impart those values, fine (although that didn't seem to stick here), but in terms of education, protection is what is going to work. It accommodates not just choices - like abstinence - but people who are born homosexual. A christian, right-wing diatribe on abstinence is going to fall on deaf ears if gay and lesbian students feel ostracized already. of course, there is the latent insinuation that whatever happens to homosexuals not practicing abstinence is their own fault. Or what if your parents don't share the same values as a school with a right-wing agenda. Certainly the parents can fill that void with proper education - but then the school is doing a disservice to its students.

I'm getting a little tangential here, but the main point is this: the right to teach value-based abstinence is questionable, but its failure is not: In the past 8 years, money to fund abstinence has gone from 60 million to over 176 million (source - Advocates for Youth). Mathematica Policy Research Inc., a non-partisan group found that abstinence does not lower the rate of teen sexual activity. If supporters are going to fight for the right to teach it, shouldn't they be held accountable for both its failure as a program, and the money that's been tossed down the drain. Of course, that money is probably spent every 3 days fighting the war in Iraq, but one rant at a time.

If teens are going to ignore or fundamentally disagree with abstinence training, to engage in sexual activity without understanding the importance and logistics of protection - then we're just punishing them. It's the equivalent of telling your teens not to drink and drive, but when they call you drunk from a party at 1AM, you decide not to pick up the phone. Roll over and go back to sleep good parent: they can get home some way - and you've done your part; any trouble they into is their own fault for not listening. Maybe some kindly date rapist with abstinence education under his belt will give your daughter a lift home.

``````````````

Bringing this back to my original beef with Palin - I respect that she may have been picked in part for her conservative views, to appeal to moral conservatives and the Christian Right. What I don't respect is this shell game that the McCain camp is playing, expecting Hillary supporters who were enthused to elect a female to the white house to suddenly drop their values and IQs, by voting for somebody who's policies couldn't be more different. The gender card is definitely being played here, to the detriment of everybody, including the McCain campaign.

The liberals get slammed as being intellectual elitists - I'll wear that badge with pride as a smart, smug asshat. But being a moral elitist? A holier than though hypocrite who believes the only help needed to be given by the government is in the form of morality brainwashing, and that services shouldn't be funded that can benefit those who haven't fully adopted those values? A sink or swim mentality to your own constituents?

Yeah, I'll take the intellectual elitism, thanks. Not that the past 8 years haven't been fun.

kudos to Bush

even if its a little late, credit has to be given to where its due. By finally consenting to talks, the administration has plugged a major logic hole. They've insisted on Iran not having the means to nuclear technology, and committed to diplomatic solutions, while resisting personally participating. By finally engaging directly, I'll be a naive optimist and hope some good will come of this.

It's time to get, while the getting is good.

So I was supporting Hillary from pretty early on. I fall into the camp that she had more substance, and that I'm a little leery of stylistic rhetoric, even if Obama's sounded so good. She frequently had more detailed answers to questions, and seemed to have done her homework. I also felt that Obama was overstating how different politics would be once he entered the white house.

For the record, as of today, I'm wishing that Hillary would concede the nomination to Barrack. It will take near total sweeps of the remaining states for her to catch up. I don't see that happening. I also don't see the super delegates giving their votes to the loser of the pledged delegate race - that would be tantamount to political suicide for the democratic party.

If she steps down now, she has the opportunity to be a gracious loser, and to help cement democratic support around Obama going into the general election. If she abstains from conceding, the party won't get that positive boost. While she wants to win, staying in this race can be interpreted as her valuing her own candidacy over a democratic win in november. It's an unfortunate side effect of what was originally positive - two candidates that were well accepted by their party, versus the republican nominee who isn't hugely supported. That's a tangible benefit, and to preserve, its time for the low-percentage candidate to step aside, if she is as committed to ending the Bush era as she claims to be. I no longer see her dogged determination as contributing anything positive - much as I don't see the value in Bush's steadfast commitment to an unethical war and total disregard of opposing viewpoints. Being committed is only valuable if you are pursuing a correct goal.

It has definitely been a very interesting primary for the democratic party, and pretty important. While I don't think republicans are feeling a lot of pressure right now, there is a palpable level of urgency on the democratic side. As a party, we need to be focused on hitting the reset button once the nominee is declared, and rally support.

Nobody ever said republicans aren't funny

Nope; they just implied it. Well, the inference that fueled the implication seems to be nothing more than balderdash. Mike Huckabee's campaign put together a great ad with Chuck Norris. Pretty shrewd as well, as the candidate who isn't taken that seriously is being paired with a celebrity who is also aware of his own less than highly esteemed public persona, and can laugh (stiffly) all the way to the bank.



On top of that, Mike Huckabee can now count on two types of voters - his primary base of Ted Nugent type survivalist conspiracy theory nutjobs, and the type of young, irony obsessed idiots that put Jesse Ventura in the govenor's mansion.

if the democrats want to get a tasty piece of the irony pie, I think that Senator Obama could be well served by doing a similar ad with his caucasian counterpart, Leonard Nimoy. Take it one step further, Senator Clinton should rope in Will Ferrel doing his Janet Reno bit - or better yet? Darrell Hammond as Bill Clinton.

One more political brain fart - the cheater versus the cuckold

Given their respective roles in adulterous love-triangles; I think that Rudolph might want to start planning far in advance how he will deal with Hillary if they meet in the general election. While Clinton is prickly and trying to avoid being perceived as a victim (the cyanide to a woman candidate), I think that as pundits get rolling, there is going to be some bad mojo for home-wrecking multiple marriage Giuliani, versus the noble cuckold Hillary (yes I know cuckolds refer to husbands - cut me some slack here). God forbid the media leaves the iron curtain open enough for somebody to raise that issue during a debate. one advantage I see here is that, while difficult, Hillary has the advantage of being able to discuss the matter with some well prepared responses. Gules on the other hand, is going to have to make a "right to personal privacy" play that is not going to sit well - particularly with social conservatives and women voters. On the flip side, being a cheating bastard gets the scumbag east coaster vote sewn up in north jersey, and I think those guys get to vote two or three times at least.

Even Karl Rove...

... is putting his money on Hillary. That's not too surprising - she's the primary frontrunner, as well as the most polarizing democrat in the race. Which makes her the broad side of a barn when it comes to republican jabs. I mean, there has to be something that Giuliani and Romney can agree on - namely that red blooded Americans should use holy water and a crucifix to keep Senator Clinton at bay.
She also seems to be the most substantive. It takes a lot of spin to create substance - so kudos to her campaign staff.

A lot of people demonize Karl Rove, but - and I say this as a committed Democrat - I think he's a national treasure in his current role. He's essentially pulling back the (first) curtain to show you how he helped shape enough minds to get Bush in the white house and keep him there. You are seeing how policy gets shaped in its earliest stages.

Of course, there's some delicious layers to this article - I'll leave the particulars of his statements for interested readers to pick up for themselves. This guy wasn't the puppet master for no reason; its interesting to pick up the nuances of what's genuine advice, what are veiled criticisms of Clinton (as opposed to the clear criticisms), and the potential that he's leaving some poison bait for democrat campaigns to sniff out. It's also very interesting to read how he walks the line to present many of his views, while keeping the more callous, manipulative brushstrokes that shaped them just off in the wings. I'll concede that he's not the influential machiavelli that he was before he resigned, but the spark is still there. It doesn't bother me that he represented George W. Bush, who I think will go down in history as one of the worst presidents to hold the office. Actually, maybe its because of that fact that I find him so compelling and capable, and a voice to be listened to. It reminds me of advice I used to get from Mr. Hyde, one of my english teachers - "know your narrator". This guy helped narrate years of the current administration, and now he's concocting some insightful prologues. He's a narrator worth knowing well.

Make em say "ugh, nah nah nah nah"

Petraeus went before a series of presidential hopefuls yesterday. If you were a senator and running for president, you were asking questions. I heard the highlights on NPR, and it made me sick. I had more of a problem with the democrats (yes I'm a dem), but I think that's partly because there were more of them there.

There was so much stumping going on, it was clear that their ears and minds were shut, and were just thinking about A:how to use information the event to further their campaign, and B: Use the event itself to further their campaign. Now I'm against the war as much as the next guy (actually in Colorado, it would be MORE than the next guy), but this was just mindless antiwar platitudes. I think the lowest point of what I heard was Obama sniping at Biden for taking up too much time on the mic. Since Biden was heading up the committee, I think he's entitled to more time. he also has a longer term vested interest, since he's been working on a solution to this situation since way before he threw his pres hat in the ring. Hillary was using some fancy footwork, but in the end it sounded more like the closing statement of a litigator.

i feel like campaigning presents a conflict of interest, and these guys should be recused from this type of high profile shenanigans. The other thing I'm noticing, is the more I hear of Obama, the less I like the guy. He puts on a good show, and says the right stuff when it comes to platitudes, but i remember a republican governor of Texas who had a similar skill set. Obama is pushing back on criticisms to his pro-hope rhetoric. The problem isn't an upbeat message (I like John Edwards who uses a lot of hope in his messaging); my problem is that its rhetoric.

The scary and useful thing about this stumping around the war is that its an important issue, and one that seems to bring out everybody's true colors. IMO, we have a responsibility to stop the hemorrhaging we caused, while weaning the Iraqi government of our collective teat. Few candidates are talking about a phased withdrawal aim at meeting both goals - its just one or the other. It also shifts incrementally, almost directly proportional to the latest SitRep and corresponding public opinion. Opinion dips, speak more harshly. Opinion rises, tame the rhetoric. I know you guys are running for president, but it's a war - how nuanced and changing does your opinion have to be on it? Pick a stance and stick with it.