Broadsheet

It WOULD be a non-issue, except that Republicans since Reagan have been excoriating the poor for teen pregnancy and pre-marital sex, and now the standard-issue sound bite is "she has made the right choice in keeping the baby and is marrying the father". Personally, I don't care; Bristol's almost 18, and obviously she's been having sex. But the fact that the Republicans are trying to sweep it under the rug IS the issue.

 

I got to agree with jwer. For decades the Republican party has attacked single moms, teenagers having sex, and working moms as the bane of American society, only to ditch these beliefs at their earliest convenience

 

How are they sweeping it under the rug? The girl and the baby's father were on stage last night. And i am so wise - so now its OK for the media to attack single moms, teens having sex and working moms and somehow equate that with her ability to be VP?

 

Zab: they are attempting to sweep it under the rug in that they dismiss it by commending her choice to not consider abortion and to marry the father, while avoiding the chance for a dialog on a legitimate social issue. If they were capable of extrapolating Bristol Palin's situation to society at large, they would be accomplishing something. But they don't want to, so they are insisting that no one talk about it at the same time that they trot out Sarah Palin's "family challenges" as evidence of her ability to be Vice-President, which is itself ludicrous.

And no, the media should not attack her, nor should they attack any other single mom or teen mother. Nor should they have been before. They should, however, be asking if this means that Sarah Palin supports kinder treatment, in deed and rhetoric, for teen moms that do not have the good fortune to be Republicans.

 

"they dismiss it by commending her choice to not consider abortion and to marry the father, while avoiding the chance for a dialog on a legitimate social issue" I would think in a family like hers, there was no "choice" made by her or by Bristol - abortion is simply not an option. And her daughter having the baby, the family's support of it and her, and the father's commitment to marry her say nothing about her ability to lead, but in my mind, show her as a good mother of a strong family. And in your last sentence I assume you're equating Republican with "rich". Yes?

 

Agreed, which is why Sarah Palin's assertion that it was "Bristol's choice" is particularly laughable. And I know plenty of good mothers, but that doesn't qualify them to run the country either.

Meanwhile, the only way Sarah Palin's comments about Obama planning to raise taxes (citing corporate tax, interest income, and "the death tax" as examples) scan with Obama's claims to plan to cut taxes for 90% of American families is that she is speaking to that top 10%, so I'd say that the Republicans equate themselves with "rich" too.

But yes, I am aware that the Reagan Revolution inextricably linked a hypocritical commitment to "Family Values" with the Republican party, and thus endless hordes of poor people and minorities will continue to register and vote Republican against their interests.

So, to fully answer your question, yes I am equating "Republican" with "rich" but only because they did it first. Nor does that mean that I think the Democrats are particularly different; lobbyists don't tend to focus their money on the destitute of either party.

 

If you look at the numbers of his tax plan, he's not cutting taxes for 90% of the people. The increase in capital gains taxes alone will affect everyone who has any investments at all - e.i. 401k, college savings plan, etc.

I say we agree to disagree as you've also asserted that the GOP is anti-poor and anti-minority. It would be pointless to argue with someone who paints with such a broad brush.

Here's hoping the best candidate wins.

 

See, the tricky thing about statistics is that you can say something true and still not be telling the whole truth. I'd far prefer Obama to reduce regular income taxes for 90% of Americans than to refuse to raise taxes that affect mostly rich people. Yes, I have investments, and yes, I have a 401k and a 529; but my investments are long-term and will be taxed at long-term capital gains rates, and my 401k will be taxed as income, not as capital gains. Legitimate 529 withdrawals are tax-exempt. And suggesting that capital gains increases will affect "everyone" is misleading, because it will affect the rich vastly more than the casual investor, as it should. Why do you think conservatives are so interested in reducing it? It's certainly not to help the guy that puts $100 in a Sharebuilder account each month.

The modern GOP IS anti-poor and anti-minority. You can "agree to disagree" but the fact remains. As I said, this does not mean that any individual Republican is inherently racist or classist, but they HAVE willingly associated themselves with a party that serves rich white men, and they have that to answer for.

 

Could not possible agree more!