So according to Erik Wemple of the Washington Post, it’s totally fair for journalists to cover stories about premarital sexual encounters that politicians had 25 years ago if they have supported abstinence education. After citing a 2006 questionnaire in which Palin said she would support funding for abstinence-education programs and oppose “[e]xplicit sex-ed programs,” Wemple writes: “If Palin backs abstinence-only education and shuns talk of contraception and the like, then we are entitled to know whether her own lifestyle aligned with her rhetoric.” I think the argument is thoughtless and thuggish, but it’s also worth noting that Wemple has his facts wrong: Palin said that same year that she believes schoolkids should be taught about contraception. (Making this mistake seems to be a habit at the Washington Post.)
In a nutshell, Wemple is saying that it's hypocritical to learn from your mistakes. No wonder he approves of Barack Obama, who has never been a hypocrite in that regard.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcuse me. But has the accusation of the sexual relationship even been proven? Geesh. So much distortion of the truth. Did you check with the Gov and Mr. Rice for confirmation? I doubt it. Accepting McCreepy's lies and innuendo is not reporting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcuse me? Why are you assuming that the Rice story is true? Todd Palin said that the rumors were "disgusting lies". But, of course, you seem to disregard that in your attempt to smear Gov. Palin.
Disgusting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow about there is no story, so why would there be a reason to cover it
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's another angle to the story. Palin was a sports reporter at the time of the alleged encounter. Journalists are not supposed to get involved sexually with the people they cover. If it's true that Palin had an encounter with Glen Rice, then that reflects poorly on the professionalism with which she did her job as a sports reporter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would say that the personal sex lives of politicians who think that teenagers should not receive vaccines to prevent sexually transmitted disease is relevant.
The argument that such a vaccine isn't necessary is based on the argument that sex will not happen as long as the teenager is virtuous enough. Well, if the person who is advocating such a position never upheld that standard themselves, this is certainly relevant information about how realistic that standard is in reality.
It seems to me that often what we have is a clash between reality and ideals. The ideal may be ideal, but public policy needs to be made based on the reality. This is not based on digging into someone's sex life to humiliate them. This is about a reality check. You are REALLY going to make policy in a way that may very well negatively affect people's health and safety based on ideals that you were never able to uphold in your own life???
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey, Dave! Tired of concern trolling Volokh, eh?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This is not based on digging into someone's sex life to humiliate them."
This I don't believe. For whatever good objective you may have, there's a part of you that is absolutely thrilled to have a go at further humiliating Sarah Palin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't speak for anyone else, as I know there are people who really dislike her. But I personally don't care about Sarah Palin, one way or another. Except that she is a human being, and deserves respect on that basis.
Do I think she is a little ditsy? Yeah. Do I think she was qualified to be Vice President? No. But I don't particularly dislike her.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll you need to qualify for vice president is to meet the age and citizenship requirements of the Constitution and garner enough votes.
That's how we got Vice President Joe Biden - a man who makes Sarah Palin's linguistic accomplishments seem positively Shakespearean.
I never could figure out how folks could think Sarah Palin lacked experience for vice-president, but Barack Obama had sufficient experience to be president. You may not think you dislike her, and you may be relatively calm when her name is mentioned, but I'd have a hard time including your post under the title "reasonable".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I never could figure out how folks could think Sarah Palin lacked experience for vice-president, but Barack Obama had sufficient experience to be president."
There are some people who believed both.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed.
I just graduated this Spring from St. Mary's College of Maryland, Maryland's public honors college. An excellent school, though very much a LIBERAL arts education.
During the run-up to the last election, I heard countless other students call Sarah Palin "Stupid" or "Totally unqualified". Every single time, I would think to myself:
"Wait. Sarah Palin, who's running for the office of VICE PRESIDENT and has years of experience as an Executive leader of the largest state in the US is 'unqualified'. Compared to a man who had NO Executive experience and was running to be the PRESIDENT? What?!?!?!"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot enough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"There are some people who believed both." Swap the (R) and (D) behind their name and the viewpoints change. Take away the names and party and just throw the history out there and everyone goes with Palin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf one really didn't care about humiliating the individual politician with whom one disagrees, one should be content to advocate reporting the statistics.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile my inclination 25 years ago would have been to beat the snot out of you for being a perpetual dimwitted nuisance around here, I now believe that knocking someone's block off is wrong unless physically provoked.
By your idiotic reasoning, I'm a hypocrite.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou touch a needle to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, by my reasoning, you would be foolish to think that testosterone-driven teenagers are not going to sometimes start fights and make policy as if there will never be any dumb fights in high school.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, David, this is where you've ended up after being banned on multiple occasions from Volokh for your nasty and continual incivility and making up your own "facts". I hope you like your new assignment from AttackWatch here better than your old one, but you're paid-for opinions will just get battered and bruised here too.
Don't you think you'd be happier on CPUSA.com though, commiserating with your comrades-in-arms? Oh, that's right, you all agree with each other's lies there. No point in it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, Dave, the fact that someone believes that a teenager can be abstinate is most likely from their own personal experience of being abstinate as a teenager. But thanks for showing your true reason for spreading these salacious rumors about Sarah Palin -- you want to discredit her arguments about teen abstinance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse