I find it offensive that she is OK with the government telling her what to do with her body. I find it offensive that she wants to tell other women what to do with their bodies. I find it offensive that she probably didn't promote safe sex, and instead promoted no sex with her child and now has a pregnant teen. I only find the previous offensive because it's proven that abstinence only education does not work. I don't care that her daughter is pregnant. Sh*t happens. I care about the hypocrisy in toting abstinence only education as the best method and having a pregnant daughter.

Would you be offended by drug couselors who have addicted children? Or teachers or school administrators who have children who are poor students?

I get the whole abortion thing (with the caveat that the governent has numerous restrictions on what one can do to their bodies, even if I concede that abortion is just about a woman's body). The whole pregnant teen when she touts something else is to basically blame anyone who promotes one thing while their children do something else.

Nope, wouldn't be offended by drug counselors who have addicted children or teachers/school administrators who have students who are poor children. I don't even put those in the same category. Didn't Regan have a son who was addicted to drugs? And wasn't Betty Ford an alcoholic?

The problem with abstinence only education is toting that it works, when in reality STDs are on the rise and teen pregnancy is up again for the first time in several years. Instead of being told that STDs can also be spread through oral sex teens are having unprotected oral sex because it's not 'real sex'. The Republican party says abstinence only education is the way to go, when obviously, it isn't. If they want to be on the high horse that it is the way to go, they shouldn't have ended up with a VP candidate who has a minor pregnant child. I wonder if the father is going to get busted for statutory rape. He's 18.

I'm not offended by Bristol's pregnancy or any of your examples. I am offended by politicians who speak in moral absolutes and who do not temper their pronouncements with the recognition that sh*t happens.

Now, as I've said before, I think this style appeals to a certain constituency that likes to be lectured from the mountaintop but still manages to fall self-servingly short because we are all sinners.

And even if she was a member of the secession group 20 years ago, the statute of limitations on Clinton's youthful "disloyalty" did not run after 20+ years.

Well, the drug counselor I would find to be in the same category, though I don't think either are deserving of criticism for what their children do. The whole just say no of drug counselors seems to be similar to the abstinence issue, but that's neither here nor there, nor am I trying to bring up a debate about drugs vs. sex.

And Strangler, those questions were directed specifically at BTD based on her post.

I find moral absolutes coming from the left all the time. I suppose it depends on whether the particular moral absolute happens to be agreed with or not.

Many leftist moral absolutes/sweeping generalizations are quite silly.

scaeagles: but even in the "just say no" program, they teach you about the specific drugs involved.

I see the parallel you're drawing, but given the dangerous and addictive nature of drugs, I don't think teaching "safe" drug use will fly. There is a safe way to have sex, there is not a way to do drugs where you aren't interacting with/touched by the chemicals involved.

But you're right... there's a VERY thin line between the two. My point is that there is a line.

(And of course, the drug counselor is in favor of educating their kid on drugs - the kid is deciding to use in spite of it, not in ignorance, as with kids who are not taught about safe sex)

What tickles me is that Palin made the revelation to quelch rumors that her teen daughter had a child out of wedlock. So, um, now her teen daughter is having a child out of wedlock.

WTF? It doesn't even make Palin that much less of a liar, since she only came out with the "truth" to quelch the other rumors that differed from the truth by a hair's width.

I'm sorry, but if you want fiscal responsibility, you’re not going to find it in the current Republican Party. The last eight years have proven that!

One of the reasons I’m voting for Obama is that I feel he will actually do something about digging us out of the economic hole Bush and co. have dug for us.

I think she came out with that to deny that Trig was not her child as was being reported....well, rumored on blogs, not really reported. I don't think it had anything to do with her teenage daughter having a child out of wedlock.