No one’s asking for perfection.
What we object to is, among other things, Bristol’s implication that premarital sex isn’t even a problem, as long as you, or someone, can afford to pay to the bills.
Sarah Palin’s involvement in this is really tangential, only really relevant insofar as her mother was Bristol’s stepping stone to public figure status, which she, by agreeing to the interview, apparently seems to want.
So a morally ignorant teenager has made a statement damaging to social conservatism, not just in its own right, but for what people WILL conclude it says about Sarah Palin’s commitment or competence on these issues, and people here are upset with those who object to the situation?
It’s not Palin Derangement Syndrome that’s the problem here, it’s Palin Sanctification Syndrome, which, evidently extends beyond Sarah to all her family requiring that we not point out her daughter’s moral inanity and irresponsibility.
You need to let it go.
I stand by my original assessment that it IS Palin Derangement Syndrome 2.0.
Did you watch the GVS interviews parts one and two? Bristol comes off as a nice, average teenage girl. And guess, what? Even nice girls have errors in judgment...that does not mean she is morally ignorant or that the actions of a couple of HS seniors are going to ‘damage social conservatism...’ Hyperbole much? The only people that ‘WILL conclude’ what Bristol’s pregnancy ‘says’ about her mother’s political positions and competency is that all involved are human and falable.
Those conservatives who critique all potential candidates with moral absolutes will find themselves saluting Dear Leader, President and Benefactor for Life, Barrack Hussein Obama. No Palin Sanctification here...just a recognition that life does happen...and it is how any one (politicians included) react that tells me how they will lead.