Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Sarah Palin, Bristol, and Mainstream Media Hypocrites: Is Bill Bennett an Ass?

Has Chelsea Clinton ever been asked whether she engaged in teenage sex? Has she ever been asked whether she believes teenage sex is "accepted", and/or whether it is a good thing for teenagers to experiment with? Has Hillary Clinton ever been asked her views on premarital sex, or whether she had premarital sex with Bill Clinton? You are as much aware as I am that these questions are just not asked by the mainstream media of Democrats and leftists, and that Chelsea Clinton even got away with campaigning for her mother without having to answer questions about her mother's marriage.

This is, of course, another example of the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the mainstream media: in agggregate, the worst sanctimonious hypocrites to ever walk the Earth. Mitt Romeny and his wife were even asked on Sixty Minutes (CBS "News"--should always be in quotes) whether they had engaged in premarital sex before they were married. For that question alone, I am sure I will meet the "journalists" of Sixty Minutes in Hell, if Hell exists.

Yeas, I am getting to Sarah Palin (who established CNN as the liar network peopled with affirmatively evil people), and her daughter Bristol. If a Democrat politician had an unwed, pregnant daughter, it would have been derided as a campaign "issue". With their usual sanctimonious hypocrisy, however, the mainstream media tried to make a campaign issue oout of Bristol's pregnacy--the disgraceful Wolf Blitzer and CNN even suggesting it was "hypocrisy" on the part of Sarah Palin for her daugher to get pregnant (see my entry on the illogic of that particular absurdity, and my multiple entries on the sheer evil of the mainstream media treatemnt of Sarah Palin and her family). It was, and is, the mainstream media who were--and are--total hypocrites in the way they approach the subject of human failings by family members of politicians (or, for that matter, human failings of politicians themselves, but the hypocrisy is especially bad with regard to Bristol Palin, Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, etc.).

This hypocrisy continues. Some mainstream media "journalists" did an interview with Bristol Palin in Sarah Palin's home in Alaska. Why were they interested? Is it because they wanted to talk to a serious authority on teenage sex, or a serious advocate of the stupidity of unmarried teenage sex? Don't be silly. Thse people continue to be intrested in using Bristol Palin to discredit both her mother and the "abstinence" (hate that word) movement in America. The mainstream media does not care that the actions of one dumb, inexperienced teenager cannot say anything about the most healthy conduct for teenagers generally. The mainstream media does not care that Bristol Plain is self-evidently an argument for teenagers not to engage in premarital sex. You might get pregnant, and have a baby out of wedlock (to the detriment of said baby). Nope. The mainstream media is only interested in attacking conseratives, by use of Bristol Palin, and to suggest both that conservatives are out of touch with reality and that Sarah Palin should be disowned by conservatives (intellectually dishonest contradictions do not bother the mainstream media or the left).

Enter Bill Bennett, who is involved in the "culture wars" on the social conservative side, and whose wife heads a major abstinence movement. In that sense, Bill Bennett is on the sie of the angels. However, I regard him as a "fallen angel" for his tirade against Sarah Palin (not Bristo) this morning on his radio show, "Morning in America" (on the channel to which I switched my radio for "alarm" purposes, to specifically avoid that total idiot, Doug Stephan) .

It turns out that Bristol Palin--proving that only dumb teenagers engage in premarital sex--said something to the effect that sex is "accepted" for young teenagers these days (not even graduated from high schoool)--evidently attempting to "excuse" her own conduct. No, I did not see the interview itself. I am only going on Bill Bennett's tirade, and I am not even interested in what Bristol said. Her opinions are irrelevant to me, as is her conduct. I feel the same towards her as I feel toward any deluded teenager out there with this attitude, and that I feel toward all of the deluded leftist ADULLTS with the same attitude (that "all" teenagers do it, and that we have to "accept" "reality" and encourage teenagers to get with the flow, so long as they use "protection").

I have mentioned before my total shame two feminist daughters with left of centrer politics. Further, I am certain that both daughters engaged in sexual practices outside of marriage of which I do not approve. Anyone who believes that Bristol reflects badly on Sarah Palin, since Sarah Palin is here mother, is an intellectually dishonest hypcrite (not quite as bad as the people of CNN and the mainstream media, but no ordinary mortals are that bad). A husband in a Dickens movie (I think "Oliver Twist", but am not sure) was told by a policeman: "The law presumes that you control what your wife does." His response: "If the law presumes that, the law is an ass." He was right. That sentiment applies here. If you presume that a parent in today's world, no matter how good a parent, controls what his or her teenager does or thinks, then that person is an ass. That applies to all of CNN and the mainstream media. I am afraid it pretty much applies to Bill Bennett.

Now should Sarah Palin have tried to discourage her daughter from giving an interview, when she has to know the appraoch the mainstream media "journalist" would take? Of course. But from what Bill Bennett said, I could not infer that Sarah Palin was responsible for the interview, although she seems to have cooperated to one degree or another in letting her home be "invaded" for that purpose. It was Bill Bennett's tirade, and his responsibility to explain why Sarah Palin was specifically responsible for what her daughter said. Instead, Bennett pretty clearly was upset that Sarah Palin had raised a daughter like this, and LET her talk to the press in a a way that undermined Bennett's "cause" ("undermined" it only because Bennett took the bait here).

Nope. I don't care what Bristol Palin says or does. It has nothing to do with whether Sarah Palin should be President. Bill Bennett seems to think otherwise. Bill Bennett is an ass. Oh, I agree that Palin--to the extent she could have stopped it, and I do not know that extent, and neither does Bill Bennett) made a POLITICAL mistake if she encouraged her daughter to give this kind of interview. Chelsea Clinton handled it better, but with the aid of a cooperative mainstream media who are the worst sanctimonious hypocrites who ever walked the Earth. If Bill Bennett had limited himself to saying that, and to noting how Bristol was not a spokesperson for either her mother or teenagers in general, I would be fine with it. But I am not fine with what Bill Bennett actually said.

The mainstream media wants conservatives to turn on "their own" who have moral lalpses, or what the media thinks they can convince conservatives are moral lapses. Bennett seemed "proud" of (correctly) jumping on Wolf Blitzer for trying (during the campaign) for trying to make Bristol a "campaign issue" (lying hypocrite that Wolf Blitzer is--again see multiple previous entries for chapter and verse). Now Bennett seems to suggest he was wrong to "defend" Sarah Paln, because she has dared to let her daugher speak her mind--in a way Bennett does not like. You know what? I could not stop my daughters from speaking their mind, although they think differently than I do, and I would not want to. Now if I were a politician, I would probably try to suggest they avoid certain questions (as Chelsea Clinton did). But is it to Sarah Palin's credit, or discredit, that she is secure enough in her own skin to not censor her daughter?

I am not sure about that last question, but I am sure that what Bristol Palin said has nothing to do with whether Sarah Palin should be President. This is one of my pet peeves. This constant acceptance by conservatives, or some conservative "leaders", that only moral perfection is acceptable in any of their candidates, and entire families of candidates, is stupid. It is giving in to a leftist trap, and leftist fallacy that alleged moral lapses are worse for conservatives (whose standards are admittedly higher) than they are for Democrats. I am tired of conservatives accepting this view. The Republican Party in Illinois made this mistake with Jack Ryan (Jeri Rayn's husband "accused" of minor sesx kinkiness), and I have said--and meant--that the Carthage approach should be sued for the Illinois Republican Party. Their sites should be sown with salt, so that they stand as a blighted moument to stupidity for a thousand years.

Yep. Bill Bennett is a pompous ass. I have always tended toward that opinion, and he has confirmed it. Am I playin g into leftist hands with this kind of trashing of oe of my cultural allies? Probably. As I say, however, this is one of my pet peeves, and I refuse to give up on it. Yes, I have trashed John McCain--but not on his personal failures, if any. I am willing to trash Republicans, and even other conservatives, on issues. I am unwilling to act like a prig, like those leftist hypocrites at CNN and elsewhere on the left, and trash conservatives on minor moral lapses in their personal lives. GEt over it, conservatives. Bill Bennett was only on CNN i the first place because they hoped he would have this attitude. It merely encourages the mainstream media to engange in the "politics of personal destruction" with regard to conservatives, because conservatives refuse to stand up to tihs kind of tactic.

To me, this principle is worth the downside of attacking ally Bill Bennett. As I say, he could have made his point without his kind of all out attack. That he did not go that route makes him an ass.

P.S. Yes, I have consistently defended Sarah Palin against the outragesous personal attacks on her, whether from the left or the right. In fact, I asy I am ashamed that my daughters turned into feminists. However, the recent election showed me to be more of a feminist than all of CNN, and most of the left. I can't tell you how badly that affected my self-image. However, the fact that I despise these personal attacks on Palin, and the people who make them, does not mean I favor Sarah Palin for President. That is a matter of who I determine ins the best conservative out there. Right now I would say it is probably Bobby Jindal, and I might even prefer Mitt Romney to Palin. However, I will judge Palin on her merits, and not on this unfair propaganda against her (even if parts of the "right" with their own agenda join in the propaganda).

P.S. 2: If Bill Bennett had merely made the point that Republican politicians need to stop letting the mainstream media invade their personal lives--not to mention stop answering stupid media questions--I would agree with him Repbublicans should stop overreacting to media generated "controversies", and Republican politicians should start really stonewalling the sanctimonious hypocrites of the media on this irrelevvanat stuff. But Bennett's tirade seemed to suggest that Bristol Palin had disqualified her mother from social conservative support. Hogwash.

No comments: