Sense from Scalzi

[owlmoose]

John Scalzi with some thoughts on Sarah Palin and her daughter's pregnancy.

The post, with which I agree almost in its entirety, can be summed up thusly:

1. The rumors about Sarah Palin's youngest child should have been beneath our notice, but boy was this a stupid way to deflect public attention from them.

2. We should follow Barack Obama's lead (scroll down to the first question and Obama's answer) and leave Bristol Palin herself out of the public discourse (although let's not pretend that the Republicans would extend the same courtesy if the situation was reversed).

3. I'll turn it over to Mr. Scalzi now:

...things that are up for continuing discussion include: Gov. Palin’s positions on abstinence-only education, women’s control of their bodies, birth control, Roe v. Wade, whether medical professionals can refuse on religious grounds to give treatment to women, and all other manner of topics relating to sex, women’s bodies, and choice. If Gov. Palin and the McCain campaign try to use Miss Palin’s pregnancy like they use Senator McCain’s former POW status — i.e., a cheap and easy trope to trot out in order to avoid answering reasonable questions — that’s well worth calling them on.

It's a fuzzy line, to be sure, but I think it's worth trying to walk it. Even if the GOP attack dogs wouldn't do the same for us. We're supposed to be better than them, after all.

Comments

I

[kunstarniki.livejournal.com]

Being a civilized creature (at least most of the time), I agree with Mr Obama when he says that families and children in particular are off limits. However, I am agonizingly aware that this sort of decency has cost us elections in the past and may well cost us this one. The line is as narrow as a sword blade and as painful to walk but I feel, with you, that we must try. Damn!

Re: I

[owlmoose.livejournal.com]

Taking the high road isn't easy, by definition. But it doesn't have to mean eschewing all lines of attack, either. It just means keeping the attacks focused on the issues, and what the candidates say and do (seven houses!) rather than their families. As Scalzi says in the quote above, just because her daughter is pregnant doesn't mean we can't call her on her policies relating to sex education and choice. Those policies are wrong on their own, without having to drag the girl into it.

I would almost say, in this election of all elections, if we can't win on the merits of our policies and strengths of our candidates, we don't deserve to win it. But I know how much is at stake, so I won't go quite that far.