Family Values?
So Sarah Palin is suppose to represent the conservative, family values of the Republican Party. Evangelicals have been outspoken in support of Palin and her pregnant 17-year old daughter. James Dobson of Focus on Family said the situation proves Palin is living with “pro-life and pro-family values.” Barack Obama and his campaign have hesitated on attacking Palin’s family issues by sticking to the high road and saying “kids are off-limits.” He also cited his own mother who gave birth to him at the age of 18.
I predict Obama will focus less on Palin’s experience and family. Joe Biden today said that while he doesn’t know the governor, there’s no reason to not believe she’s qualified to be VP. While Obama and co. are conceding the experience issue (focusing it will only magnify Obama’s experience issue), Obama and Biden will probably focus more on the issues and Palin’s decisions as governor. One decision that Obama can criticise is Palin’s funding cuts for a teen pregnancy program. While there are obvious connections to Palin’s daughter, this is key to demolishing the myth that the Republican Party is the best supporter of so-called family values.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’m waiting for someone to confused Biden for Bob Barker and attack him on his anti-family values of spaying and neutering.
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
That might be a good attack, if it weren’t for the fact that the Covenant House Alaska only received 1.3 million from government grants in 2007 and 1.2 million in 2006. Thus the Alaskan legislature was proposing a whopping 4 fold increase in funding, Sarah cut that down to a 3 fold increase. So if the democrats decide to attack her on this, they’ll only aid in proving she’s a fiscally responsible conservative.
Covenant House IRS/financial documents for 2006,2007: http://covenanthouseak.org/financials.html
Article talking about Alaska’s overblown budget for 2008 linked to oil revenues:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/119623
P.S. – Thanks Ma’ayn for helping me find the financial records
September 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Moderate my comment!!!
September 5th, 2008 at 7:59 am
That really isn’t the argument, is it? Republicans want to say she’s strong on family values, yet she’s willing to give up those principles to save some money. The conclusion is that, sure, she’s fiscally conservative, but she’s also not as family values oriented as advertised.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:36 am
The argument put forth is that she didn’t spend a ginormous amount of the budget on one teenage pregnancy program and instead just spent a slightly-less ginormous amount. From this line of logic, you could say that an activist who donated $100 to a particular homeless shelter instead of $200 (though he could afford a higher amount) is not as homeless values oriented as advertised.
First, you’re making a judgment that one has to give all or nothing in order to earn a label of being value-oriented. She still set aside a large amount of funding for Covenant House; just because she didn’t set aside as much as someone else suggested doesn’t mean she isn’t family values oriented. It just means that she didn’t think that particular charity (not cause, mind you) didn’t need that amount and might have done fairly well with her suggested amount.
Second, you’re mistaking the charity with the cause. That article only points out one family charity in the budget. You’re assuming that there is no other family values oriented charity that received funding in this budget. Maybe she thought Thursday’s Child or the Alaskan Alliance on Teen Pregnancy did better jobs at preventing teen pregnancy. The linked article conveniently cuts out the rest of the proposed budget and makes a conclusion based on scant evidence.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Click here….
Nice site. Check out this one sometime……
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 am
What this country needs is a good five-cent nickel.