General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo... Does Santorum's Eldest Daughter Become Fair Game ???
I normally would say no... but tonight...
I really do not care... because she's up on stage supporting/applauding with her dad, and frowning/scolding when it comes to her dad's opponents... Romney AND Obama...
Santorum thanked her for being there where he could not be...
What say you... does it cross a line ???
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)seems fair game to me
pkdu
(3,977 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)His eldest daughter is an adult, and is certainly open for criticism for the poor choices she makes - like publicly supporting insane & anti-American presidential campaign of her father.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)I wouldn't spend too much time (read almost any) time on it, but I reserve the right to gently smack that surrogacy/surrogate down a notch or two.
saras
(6,670 posts)Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)area 21 and above HELL YEAH!
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)when Hillary was pimping her daughter ...
I mean, what kind of excuse is there for the disgusting behaviour of actually supporting the campaign of your parent? What kind of sick fuck would actually do a thing like that? There is just no excuse for that kind of depravity.
Gman
(24,780 posts)At this point, we want Santorrum.
beyurslf
(6,755 posts)Kids are off limits if they are still kids. I would count that all the way through college. Megan McCain is fair game. Chelsea Clinton would now be fair game. The Bush twins would now be fair game. I should also add they are fair game only if the campaign.
Ilsa
(64,377 posts)My guess is that Sarah is 20-21 years old. I figure she was born early in their marriage since they say they don't use birth control.
Beaverhausen
(24,699 posts)not cool and you know better.
CTyankee
(68,203 posts)If Santorum's daughter makes as much of his policies as Liz did of her fathers, I think it really IS fair game.
Beaverhausen
(24,699 posts)Calling a candidate's 20 year old daughter 'fair game' is fucked up.
CTyankee
(68,203 posts)I'm no sure if Fair Game is exactly what to call it. I don't want to see anyone unfairly treated. But we certainly can look at her public statements in support of her father's policies and voice our own opinions about them, can't we?
progress2k12nbynd
(221 posts)She's not a candidate; he is.
Johonny
(26,183 posts)why give a crap about the brain drippings of a daughter of a person that appears to be a month from hoping Faux needs another weekend news show.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)GodlessBiker
(6,314 posts)Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)Have at 'em.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)But if the target is under 18... ah, I dunno about making fun of kids.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)We know nothing about the Santorum kids and there is absolutely no reason to attack them. This is a case where two wrongs do not make a right.
RZM
(8,556 posts)Of course she speaks for her father. That's what families do. I don't care much about her, I care where Ricky stands. And she is neither here nor there in that discussion.
moriah
(8,312 posts)Might be considered "fair game" if people think so -- she is 20 -- but *I* am not going to stoop to it.
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)She is working on the campaign, as such, she is a representative of the candidate.
unblock
(56,198 posts)you go after the politician for being a bad parent and throwing their kid into that cesspool, taking advantage of their kids, taking them out of school to help with the politician's career, etc.
karynnj
(60,968 posts)I think Santorum's kids have all been homeschooled, so they were not taken out of school.
I think this is a decision that belongs to the parents. I liked that Obama kept his kids away except for the biggest events - like the convention and election night. That seemed an excellent balance. To miss those days they will remember all their lives would have been a loss and their lives were as normal as could be for anyone with a parent running for President. The Clintons balanced this well for 8 years.
unblock
(56,198 posts)but in general i don't give much of a crap about a candidate's family, good or bad.
it only comes into play if a family member is going to be, say, the president's attorney general.
and i certainly don't think there's much to be said about their kids, at least not while they're minors.
in terms of good parenting, though, i think that's fair game. i agree that it's reasonable for candidates to take their kids out of school for things like the convention/nomination, election night, inauguration major events like that from which they would in any event learn something they couldn't get from school.
they just need to make sure their education is not getting short-changed. homeschooling is neither here nor there. if they're not spending the appropriate hours in lessons and studying, then they're being short-changed. if their normal education is distrupted, they need to have a tutor travel with them. if the parents can continue to home-school enough hours while on the road, that's fine, but if not, they need a tutor to help, and they need to make sure the children's political hours don't prevent enough proper education.
oh, and no fair for politicians to trot out the kids for political plus points and then whine about the pot shots some people take. personally, i think the pot shots are not cool, but neither is the hypocrisy. if you don't want your kids subjected to the ugliness of politics, don't put them in the limelight.
starroute
(12,977 posts)So that makes her close to 21.
Lochloosa
(16,735 posts)pennylane100
(3,425 posts)I would definitely say we have a right to critique her performance. If she does nothing objectionable and does not lie or smear Obama, I would respect her for that.
JI7
(93,617 posts)crap .
but just standing up there and supporting him by just standing there and smiling or any other faces. no , i wouldn't go after her for that.
and there is too much to go after her dad on anyways.
Bombtrack
(9,523 posts)Kurmudgeon
(1,751 posts)Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)she qualifies
progress2k12nbynd
(221 posts)She's not in the debates, she's not on the ballot; what exactly are we saying she's fair game for?
PA Democrat
(13,428 posts)Knowing Tricky Ricky, he is funnelling as much campaign contribution money as possible into his and his family members' pockets. If she is being paid by his campaign, she's fair game.
belcffub
(595 posts)kids support their parents... Go after Rick... leave his kid alone...
treestar
(82,383 posts)It wouldn't be really fair to let candidates use their adult children and un-criticizable shills for them, would it?
So far, she hasn't done much, but if she starts talking and gets media attention for it - then we should be able to answer her nonsense as well as anyone else's.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)If she went out and was speaking, showing up on the news shows or otherwise being active independently that would be different. For simply standing by her dad while he runs for Prez does not make her fair game. I say leave her alone.
Just imagine it's your own child. I don't care if the child is 8 or 20, when they are yours they are your "child".
One of the many reasons I would NEVER, EVER go into politics is this very reason, I wouldn't want assholes making my kids' lives miserable~~because that is what low life Rethugs do, not us.
Julie
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)Bristol injected herself into the national discussion with her abstinence campaign. Simply standing on stage is understandable, IMO.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)She's not running for President.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)I'm serious. For what? What is she doing other than standing on stage supporting her dad? All the candidates' kids do that.
Is there something about her in particular that bothers you? She looks like her dad, and that's disturbing to me because of how I feel about HIM, but otherwise, who cares?
I have to say I get suspicious when anyone asks about a young woman being "fair game." I didn't like it when the Rethugs made fun of Chelsea Clinton's looks, I don't like it when they go after the Obama girls (the element of racism added to the sexism is nauseating) and I think Santorum gives us plenty of ammunition on his own.
So...no. Just no.
not with the kinds of stuff that can come out of the bowels of DU.
is my first reaction.
but if she goes on talk shows and writes eds like Dick Cheney's daughter (forget her name) then I guess it is fair game.
Javaman
(65,714 posts)well not really, but she was there and yes, she is now fair game.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I also think they are fair game when the parents uses them as shields like back in 2008 when Palin used Willow as a shield at the Flyers hockey game. Philadelphia is major liberal city even though Flyers Ed Snider is both an asshole and a republican. Knowing that Philadelphia fans are notorious booers, Sarah made her middle child Willow walk out to center ice with her. Even with the music being played loudly you could still hear the very very loud boos.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)I was so proud of them for booing and waving their Obama signs when that opportunist stepped onto the ice!
Leave the kids out of it. Of course they're going to support their parent. Go after the candidate and not the kids.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)for what, exactly?
IMO, the only person who is really "fair game" for anything is the candidate.
I don't care who is doing cartwheels and cheerleading for the candidate. They're not running. Bashing anyone other than the candidate seems pretty childish to me.
tabbycat31
(6,336 posts)Even Obama's kids have done that at one point or another. That does not make them fair game.
Now, if they act as surrogates for their parents and go off on their own to stump for Daddy/Mommy then they are fair game.
And minor children should ALWAYS be off limits.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)Obama's girls are going to be with him at public functions too.
Leave all the kids alone. They are not independent actors.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)take her down?
karynnj
(60,968 posts)All were surrogates for their parents - as were the Bush daughters and McCain's daughter (his other kids seemed less involved).
They all were people who could speak to a side of their parent that others really could not. Their accomplishments did reflect on their parents. Any of their "youthful misbehavior" for those who had it was highlighted more than it would have been for people not in the public eye. However, I really do not think that there are many who would have changed their vote over the Bush girls drinking, Gore's son speeding etc.
I know of only one person on a fence who decided because of the kids. That was in 2004 when the Republicans smeared Kerry as an unprincipled flip-flopper, when he actually is a man of considerable integrity. This older woman observed that the values that Vanessa spoke of with regards to herself echoed those her dad spoke of. She was on the fence and wanted to believe Kerry was who he said he was, not how the Republicans painted him - that echo made her believe it was the former. (I know many who trusted Edwards because his wife, not his kids, validated him.)
In Santorum's case, no one is distorting him - he is an extremist, who I think the majority would reject for what he really is and is proud to be. With Romney, consider it was his sons who humanized him with the Seamus story. Even allowing for difference between party values, this did not help.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)So yes, if she's going to take an active part, then she becomes fair game.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)And I do not think she should be demonized by what has been drummed into her head since she was born.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)If it takes away votes from the other guy, it's fair game.
If it alienates your own support, it's not.
In this case, I'd say the latter.
It's one of the challenges for democrats. We have a much lower "fair game" tolerance than republicans. If you're a republican, you can tell the following joke;
"Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?" And he puts up a picture of (13 year old) Chelsea Clinton."
... and be praised by the next president as "a great american".
You can't do that as a Democrat because your supporters won't reward you for it.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)For my part, and after having read this thread, I can only conclude that if we denigrate and insult a candidate's family member, it's because our arguments against the candidate's actual positions are either lacking or simply weak. Insulting his daughter does absolutely nothing to address the legitimate political concerns we may have with Santorum the politician.
However, I do realize that there will be a strong contingent who will rationalize the wholly irrelevant attacks on a daughter, by predicating their vulgarity on that of others, by justifying the maliciousness by stating "she's fair game" (as though they actually believe that is a valid point in and of itself), or even defending the boorish behavior due to a dogmatic and rigid political conviction that ethical behavior is as diaphanous and malleable as pottery clay.
But yes... let's continue to deny Pogo's truism as to where the enemy in fact, is, and make fun of a young lady for the horrid and revolting act of supporting her own family. Let's advertise to all the world that insults, rather than politics are what we care about.
dembotoz
(16,922 posts)if santorum loads his kid into the breech????????
TBF
(36,671 posts)Megan McCain and her blog ... she was fair game as well.
When kids choose to stay out of the limelight then I think we must respect that and steer clear. For instance Chelsea is now around 30 and has just recently started to communicate about her charitable works and interests via Facebook (she may be blogging elsewhere as well). That's terrific - but it's obviously something she stayed away from until she decided as an adult that she was going to have some sort of public persona. I admired how the Clintons were able to shelter her and give her as normal a childhood as possible given the situation. I wish they would all do that rather than parade them in front of the cameras.