> I don't think this point needs to be made _at the expense of_ her
> daughter, but I think it's mildly amusing that the double-standard she
> holds in this case is directly opposed to the non-double-standard
> position that Michael Dukakis stood up for and got skewered for.
I'm trying to follow this and I don't quite see what about Palin is evidence of a double-standard or hypocrisy.
Sure, she is a proponent of abstinence-only education (so I've been told), and she has a preggo teenage daughter. But I don't think the premise of ab-only ed. (for those who believe it is effective) is to lead to a reduction in teenage *pregnancies*; the point is to lead to a reduction in teenage immorality, loosely defined as sexual activity.
To these folks, girls avoiding abortions is most important. Girls avoiding fucking is pretty important. Girls not getting pregnant - well they don't seem to care much about that, and if the girls *are* fucking, then if they get pregnant, fine, as long as they don't consider abortion.
I really doubt Palin's own daughter is the one "Aha!" moment the rightards needed to see the flaws in abstinence-only education. "Wait, you mean it does *NOT* keep all kids from fucking? WHO KNEW!" Puh-leeze.
Now, if Palin had spirited her away for an abortion at the same time she was campaigning to overturn Roe v. Wade then game on; she's a hypocrite.
But otherwise I'm much more interested in Palin's "someone needs to tell me what the VP actually does" interview from July than her jailbait daughters' sex lives.
Matt
-- GnuPG Key ID: 0xC33BD882 aim: beyondzero123 http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123
Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
-Westley