why is the 4 month old baby at the convention tonight??

[Anonymous]

kakki wrote:

I totally agree with this. So even though I would never make the choices Sarah Palin has made, I don't feel that it's my place to say that she was wrong to make them. How can I say what's right for her family? I certainly don't want someone else saying what's right for mine!

Amen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Down syndrome babies tend to be quiet. Sarah Palin is to be commended for her initiative to put special needs children first. She is an admirable woman. What in the world has Biden done for this country? Nothing I say.

Putting special needs children first? What the hell has she done for special needs children????

It is laughable to suggest that she is putting her any of her children first - much less her special needs child. She is putting her career first. Period. There is no way she can campaign for VP, be a governor of Alaska and still put her children first. If she was paying so much attention to them, why the hell was her teenage daughter having sex with her boyfriend (as we all know mom believes in abstinence only!).

It isn't as if Palin is a single parent. She has a husband who is there to care for her children, including her baby. I think it is pretty presumptuous to think that she hasn't put her children first. We haven't seen her holding the baby much, but do you hold your baby at work? Highly unlikely.

I would never point fingers at someone who has a pregnant teenager. I have a son and a daughter, and I have no idea what will happen to them later in life. The best I can do is to educate them, support them, and pray like hell that they make good, smart decisions. I didn't always make good choices, and I doubt my children will as well.

We don't live in the Palin house. We don't see how she interacts with her family, or how supportive (or not) she is of her children. I can say that the families I know, with five or more children, the parents are usually pretty commited. Even if the mom or dad work.

[Anonymous]

Putting special needs children first? What the hell has she done for special needs children????

It is laughable to suggest that she is putting her any of her children first - much less her special needs child. She is putting her career first. Period. There is no way she can campaign for VP, be a governor of Alaska and still put her children first. If she was paying so much attention to them, why the hell was her teenage daughter having sex with her boyfriend (as we all know mom believes in abstinence only!).

1) She chose to have the baby which is more than many of the self-centered women on this board would ever do.
2) Whether you support her or not, it raises awareness of special needs children to the general public.
3) She does work, but she keeps a crib in her office and breastfeeds/pumps. There are tons of pictures of her as Governor where she is holding Trig or has her other children with her or they are in the background. In addition, she rarely allows anyone outside her family to babysit her children.
4) Most parents who have survived having teenagers will tell you that they thank their lucky stars if their children made it through those years without using drugs, getting pregnant or dying in a car accident. Teenagers often make poor choices and it is not because they necessarily have bad parents.

[Anonymous]

Excellent post, PP.

[Anonymous]

Totally agree! Great post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree! Great post

I think so too, and am sorry I got pulled into all the family stuff. Looking back on it I asked myself how a bunch of pros like Schmidt et al could have handled the Bristol thing the way they did. My answer, tinged with cynicism I guess, is that they wouldn't leave a shoe waiting to drop at any old unpredictable time. In other words, I think they knew the Bristol/Trig rumor would spread and draw attention away from real issues, and that they could trot out the pregnancy and the hunky boyfriend in time for her big night.

I am not sure whether that is (1) too insulting to their integrity, (2) too generous to their skills, or (3) correct. What do you think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Putting special needs children first? What the hell has she done for special needs children????

It is laughable to suggest that she is putting her any of her children first - much less her special needs child. She is putting her career first. Period. There is no way she can campaign for VP, be a governor of Alaska and still put her children first. If she was paying so much attention to them, why the hell was her teenage daughter having sex with her boyfriend (as we all know mom believes in abstinence only!).

1) She chose to have the baby which is more than many of the self-centered women on this board would ever do.
2) Whether you support her or not, it raises awareness of special needs children to the general public.
3) She does work, but she keeps a crib in her office and breastfeeds/pumps. There are tons of pictures of her as Governor where she is holding Trig or has her other children with her or they are in the background. In addition, she rarely allows anyone outside her family to babysit her children.
4) Most parents who have survived having teenagers will tell you that they thank their lucky stars if their children made it through those years without using drugs, getting pregnant or dying in a car accident. Teenagers often make poor choices and it is not because they necessarily have bad parents.

So true, so true. In addition, I have it on good authority from a friend who is working at the convention that she was breastfeeding her baby not 40 minutes before she was due to go on. That is probably why the baby is there, so that his mother can care for him and try to do her job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Down syndrome babies tend to be quiet. Sarah Palin is to be commended for her initiative to put special needs children first. She is an admirable woman. What in the world has Biden done for this country? Nothing I say.

Are you kidding me? I have no problem with her baby at the event at that age. I do have a problem with anyone believing she puts the needs of special needs children first. If she really did, she wouldn't be going back to work as Governor 3 days after giving birth. Um, hello? What's the Lt. Governor for??

On top of the Trig issue, she's got enough problems with Bristol's new baby coming up. She can't run her own family and I'll be damned if she thinks she going to run mine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Putting special needs children first? What the hell has she done for special needs children????

It is laughable to suggest that she is putting her any of her children first - much less her special needs child. She is putting her career first. Period. There is no way she can campaign for VP, be a governor of Alaska and still put her children first. If she was paying so much attention to them, why the hell was her teenage daughter having sex with her boyfriend (as we all know mom believes in abstinence only!).

1) She chose to have the baby which is more than many of the self-centered women on this board would ever do.
2) Whether you support her or not, it raises awareness of special needs children to the general public.
3) She does work, but she keeps a crib in her office and breastfeeds/pumps. There are tons of pictures of her as Governor where she is holding Trig or has her other children with her or they are in the background. In addition, she rarely allows anyone outside her family to babysit her children.
4) Most parents who have survived having teenagers will tell you that they thank their lucky stars if their children made it through those years without using drugs, getting pregnant or dying in a car accident. Teenagers often make poor choices and it is not because they necessarily have bad parents.

So true, so true. In addition, I have it on good authority from a friend who is working at the convention that she was breastfeeding her baby not 40 minutes before she was due to go on. That is probably why the baby is there, so that his mother can care for him and try to do her job.

1) Self-centered? Aware of self is more like it. No one complains if a woman puts her career before starting a family. I think the women on this board are aware of how much more life would change to have a career and a special needs baby.
2) Raises awareness of special needs? I think we're all aware of these kinds of conditions. Most especially women in this age bracket who can have a higher incidence of Downs babies.
3) Here's where I draw the line: there shouldn't be difference between men and women but there is. And if I died tomorrow, my husband would not bring our baby to work with him. Neither should she!
4) Luck is the key phrase here, but that doesn't make for good parenting. Parents who are involved in their children's lives make an impression - and it's almost always a good one. Teen pregnancy is not ok. It's not cool. It's bad parenting all the way around.

[Anonymous]

Gosh, PP. No one should take their baby to work with them? Um, says who?

[Anonymous]

No, not when you're the Governor or in any other similar kind of position.

[Anonymous]

If I had a 4 month old and was giving that speech, my baby would have been strapped to the front of me while I gave the speech. And for those people complaining about the baby being passed around...you mean being held by sister who is obviously accustomed to holding him and who obviously adores him, oh or his other sister, um...or his dad. Yeah, in my (smaller) family we don't think it is at all weird or abnormal when family members want to hold and cuddle and love a new baby.