YourCT.com header image 2
← Palin Kid Preggers Norwalk: How Are We Doing? →

Bartlett on right wing media’s double-standard.


by Chris MC


September 2nd, 2008 · 27 Comments

State Representative Jason Bartlett, it is safe to say, likes to speak his mind. He’s not afraid of controversy, in fact he sometimes courts it. While at the Democratic National Convention last week, he called on U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman to leave the Democratic Party.

In Bartlett’s view, the media is going easy on Sarah Palin, and Rep. Bartlett makes no bones about why:

… if the situation was reversed and this was an African American whose seventeen year old daughter was unwed, pregnant, and still in high school…

First of all, that person would not have been picked for the [Vice Presidential spot on the] ticket.

Second, the national media would have blown this up to much greater proportions than they seem to be doing now. And the right wing would be unforgiving - disparaging, then castigating; and stereotyping the black family.

It’s just unbelievable to me.

Bartlett went on to say that the Palin selection itself is entirely based on the issue of abortion. In his view it was this issue alone that was decisive in preventing McCain from selecting Joe Lieberman as his running mate. And had McCain wanted to select a woman with the gravitas to derail the Obama train, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson would have been the choice. The reason she wasn’t, he says, is she’s pro-choice.

Meanwhile, apparently conflicting accounts of Palin’s position on the issue of birth control appeared online.
First, CNN reported Palin backed abstinence education

Posted: 02:00 PM ET
(CNN) – Sarah Palin, who announced on Monday that her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, indicated during her run for Alaska governor that she was a firm supporter of abstinence-only education in schools.

In a 2006 Eagle Forum questionnaire, Palin indicated that she supported funding abstinence-until-marriage education programs instead of teaching sex-education programs.

“Explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” Palin wrote in the conservative group’s questionnaire.

Then, this report from Time

… Sarah Palin is a longterm member of a group called Feminists for Life, which is not opposed to birth control. So you probably can’t tag her for consigning young people to unwanted pregnancies.

The issues then - media bias, right-wing hypocrisy, Sarah Palin’s true position on birth control, or identify another.
But not Bristol Palin; thank you.

Tags: Bethel · CT House · Chris MC · In the News · Presidential 2008

27 Responses so far ↓ “Bartlett on right wing media’s double-standard.”



  • 1 Nonymous // Sep 2, 2008 at 6:11 am

    I agree that Kay Bailey Hutchison would have been a better choice but she and McCain personally don’t like each other.
    While there are many reasons teenage girls get pregnant, one of them certainly is response to the overly controlling, repressive atmosphere in an evangelical household. The poor kid.

  • 2 anonymous // Sep 2, 2008 at 7:10 am

    I think the real issue is that McCain didn’t do his homework. And if he fails at his first decision, what do we have to look forward to if he gets in office?

  • 3 Old Timer // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:19 am

    Old man overly impressed by good looking much younger woman, makes impulse decision. Nothing unusual there, except this older man is running for president. His opponents will be all over this. Obama will take the high road and avoid a personal attack. His people will use that Dayton video, where McCain can’t keep his eyes off her backside, in campaign ads. It pretty well speaks for itself. If it wasn’t so serious, it would be funny. You can’t make this stuff up.

  • 4 My mom gets it right // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:38 am

    My 85 year old mother’s first comment on the Sarah Palin choice? “What’s that old fool thinking?”

  • 5 Anonymous // Sep 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    I just wonder who is taking care of Sarah Palin’s 4-month old baby with Down’s syndrome. Both parents work (Sarah went back to work 3 days after birth - apparently her baby didn’t need any special care) and now she’s running for VP of the U.S.? It doesn’t sound like the Palin’s kids get any guidance at all with absentee parents…

  • 6 Just the facts please // Sep 2, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    Palin’s Husband Todd’s two jobs—commercial fisherman and oil production manager on the North Slope—provide ample time off. Thus allowing him to be a stay at home dad because of the minimal amount of time required for either job. The seasons are completely different than the rest of the US and therefore there really is no reason why he shouldn’t be at home with the children.

  • 7 Observer // Sep 2, 2008 at 6:18 pm

    #5, wouldn’t surprise me if the Palins had a nanny; many people in similar positions employ nannies. Just look at people living in Westport, New Canaan or Ridgefield; there’s entire generations who’ve grown up being raised by nannies instead of their own parents.

    And anyway, what’s it to YOU? Are YOU directly affected by how Palin raises her children??

    No, you’re not. So shut up.

  • 8 Anonymous // Sep 2, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    My understanding is that she takes the baby to the office with her. Charming in the abstract but have you ever tried getting work done with an infant around? I’d love to know what her staff thinks of that idea…but she apparently doesn’t care what anyone else thinks.

  • 9 Anonymous // Sep 2, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Wow, can you imagine the VP taking the kids to the office with her? “Here, honey. Play with the hotline to the House Minority leader for a while…”

  • 10 Anonymous // Sep 2, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    #7 - I’m not shutting up - I’m going to say whatever I want - even though Republicans keep trying to suspend free speech. I think that how any elected official chooses to treat their families is an indicator of their character. I know first hand how difficult it can be to raise a child with Downs Syndrome - do you? I can’t imagine absentee parents. Maybe the grandparents are involved - I don’t know - that’s why I asked the question. Certainly having a 5-month pregnant teen as well doesn’t sound like they have strong influences in their lives. Why should we vote for them to lead our country?

  • 11 DUH! ABORT-ABORT- ABORT WILL ROBINSON // Sep 2, 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Because you lib Democrats have aborted/murdered a million children since Row vs Wade. Who knows how many of them may have been Democratic Presidential Hopefuls.

    Democratic Presidential Hopefuls? ON SECOND THOUGHT.

  • 12 Anonymous // Sep 2, 2008 at 10:58 pm

    Hey “Duh” - learn how to blog and leave the personal attacks out of it. I haven’t aborted anyone and I don’t support abortion. I believe in responsible parenting. As far as being a “lib Democrat”, I would never affiliate with either of the parties in this town - the same decision that the majority of registered voters in Norwalk have made.

  • 13 Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 6:55 am

    I prefer to think of how many of them could have been Republican presidential hopefuls. Considering how they’ve managed to alienate supporters and have endangered the party’s chances of success, maybe that’s the real reason the extremists who have taken over the party have got their panties in a bunch.

  • 14 LUCKY #13 // Sep 3, 2008 at 8:34 am

    Get used to it, the man in the street is not voting for OBamanation.

  • 15 Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 9:10 am

    Well, I knew the GOP was desperate to expand its base, but recruiting street people? Maybe if they bribed them with a bottle of Mad Dog they could get them to register.

  • 16 Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:42 am

    At the age of 5 months, babies are mostly sleeping or sitting up in their carriers playing with their fingers and toes. They don’t need a lot of supervision because they can’t move around much yet. Put them down on the floor on a blanket with a stuffed animal and a rattle and they’ll be in that same position two hours later. So bringing a 5-month-old to the office is not that big a deal. It will be more difficult in a few more months once the baby has the ability to move around on its own. And babies with Downs are slower to develop than a baby without, so the chances are, Palin’s child will be immobile for a longer time than a Downs-free baby would normally be. Developmental stages like crawling, cruising and walking, which usually take place in normal infants between 6 months to 18 months, will probably take 4 to 6 months longer to take place in a Downs baby. So the chances of the baby moving around the office on its own and getting into mischief are still a good 6-8 months away.

  • 17 Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 10:48 am

    You know, having a VP with a Downs Syndrome child might actually be a good thing for the country as a whole. Just think how much good Palin could do for the handicapped. After all, look at what the Kennedys accomplished for the mentally handicapped, just by virtue of having a developmentally-disabled sister. They started the Special Olympics and have always been at the forefront of making and supporting laws to benefit the handicapped. Why should Palin be any different?

    Would you feel any differently about Palin if one of her children were deaf? or blind?

  • 18 Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:15 am

    Why would Palin be any different? Because the GOP could give a s*hit about anyone who makes less than $5 million a year, that’s why.

  • 19 Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:28 am

    So which is worse for this country — to have a president and veep that appeals to blacks and liberals or to have a president and veep that appeals to trailer trash and religous wingnuts?

  • 20 Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:47 am

    We’ve had trailer trash and wingnuts dictating the agenda for the past eight years. If that means appealing to blacks and liberals, fine. We have hit bottom and it is truly time to get rid of the GOP.

  • 21 Anonymous // Sep 3, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    #20 you need to go revisit your history lessons. There have been more right-wing presidents than left-wing ones.

    And since 1960 there have only been 4 Democratic presidents, serving an approximate total of only 20 years. There have been 5 Republican presidents, serving an approximate total of 28 years.

    Guess that tells you what your odds are for this go-round, doesn’t it?

  • 22 Old Timer // Sep 4, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    In her speech last night, Gov Palin promised that, if they get elected, families with special needs children will have a friend, indeed an advocate, in the White House. That could be a good thing.

  • 23 maybe it's me but.. // Sep 4, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    If she gets elected & something happens to McCain do you think that the nation is ready for a woman who won a beauty contest to be in charge of pushing a bottom and starting WWIII?

    She has NO experience at all, don’t you think that really is a #1 requirement in the hunt for VP? Or do you think that McCain will live forever, after all he’s only had 4 bouts of cancer, he’ll be ok till he dies in his sleep when he’s 90.

    Because she is so pretty I think McCain got caught up with his desire to have fun while in office and forgot that there is a job to do 365/7/24. Will she not do anything while he’s in office, alot different that the way that the White House is runned now.

  • 24 Anonymous // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Hmm, let’s see.

    Obama has exactly 173 days worth of experience in the Senate. NOT including those days he has taken off to run his campaign, or to take trips overseas to speak with our enemies.

    Compare that to Palin’s 6+ years of being a mayor and a governor, of meeting with other governors and other mayors of cities around the country, and of meeting various federal government representatives.

    Excepting his day-to-day meetings with other Senators, Obama has had nothing that compares.

    Care to rethink that “Palin = inexperienced” comment again?

  • 25 Anonymous // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:16 pm

    #24: Keep breathing that rarified air.

  • 26 Chris MC // Sep 8, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    … take trips overseas to speak with our enemies.

    You mean, the Germans? President Sarkozy? Our staunch ally Great Britain? You evidently don’t pay attention to actual events.

    Compare that to Palin’s 6 years of being a mayor and a governor,…

    Nah.
    Palin is a sop to the culture war lovin’, end-of-times base that McCain was just not makin’it with. Nothing more.

    Her nomination has been tactically effective, but a complete betrayal of everything John McCain once professed to believe. He’s become a craven, flip-flopping, grasping hypocrite of the first order. He’s sold out.

    What a price to pay for someone who served so heroically and who had laid legitimate claim to being truly his own man. It will be bittersweet indeed when he loses on November 4th.

  • 27 Anonymous // Sep 8, 2008 at 11:13 pm

    I believe Anon #24 was referring to Obama’s trip to the Middle East? That’s the only trip I’ve heard that he’s made recently.

Leave a Reply