For some reason, the pious social conservatives of the Republican Party did not denounce the 17-year-old daughter of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Instead, they greeted the news of her pregnancy as evidence of the strong moral fiber of Palin and her husband, citing the fact that they have offered Bristol their comfort and support.
For a minute there, I feared that right wingers would attack the young lady as evidence of the moral failings of a liberal, anything-goes culture, or as proof that her parents had failed to provide a Christian upbringing that eschews sex outside marriage. After all, that’s what conservatives usually say when unmarried adolescent girls get pregnant.When Jamie Lynn Spears’ pregnancy was revealed, for example, Bill O’Reilly went after her parents.
“On the pinhead front, 16-year-old Jamie Lynn Spears is pregnant. The sister of Britney says she is shocked. I bet.
“Now most teens are pinheads in some ways. But here the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her or even over Britney Spears. Look at the way she behaves,” O’Reilly declared.
...
Of course, the Palins reside inside the magic circle of ultra-conservative approval, so, naturally, they are judged less harshly. But since the pious arm of the GOP has extended its compassion to Bristol and her parents, perhaps it will be moved to extend that grace to every other teenager who experiences a similar crisis and decides to rear her child and every other family who struggles to lend support.
But others in similar positions haven’t been shown the same mercy. Instead, they’ve been denounced as irresponsible, foolish, immoral. The mothers-to-be have been mocked, derided as the products of a modern culture of moral relativism. Perhaps that’s all behind us now. Perhaps we’re all willing to agree that children sometimes stray even when their parents work hard to keep them on a straight and narrow path.
For invoking Bill O'Reilly's name in this thoughtful column, the attack hounds of Fox were unleashed to confront Cynthia Tucker, hoping to make her look foolish (or worse) on camera. Jay Bookman writes:
As Tucker stopped outside her house to pick up her mail, the Fox camera crew emerged out of a car parked across the street and advanced on her, yelling questions. At this point, I’ll turn it over to Tucker for the blow-by-blow account, as she recalls it:
O’Reilly guy: “Cynthia, in your column, were you comparing Bristol Palin to Jamie Lynn Spears?”
Cynthia: “In my column, I was criticizing Bill O”Reilly. And I stand by that.”
O’Reilly guy: “Bill pointed out that Jamie Lynn Spears was running around unsupervised. You know that. So you were saying that Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”
Cynthia: “If I said that, read that part. You’re holding the column (in your hand). Read where I said Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”
O’Reilly guy: “You inferred (sic) it.”
Cynthia: “I inferred O’Reilly is a hypocrite. And I stand by that. Good day, gentlemen. I’m going inside to finish my Saturday chores.”
(They ran behind me, shouting, “Why weren’t you in Minneapolis? You went to the Democratic Convention. Why didn’t you go to the Republican Convention?” I didn’t look back — just got in my car and drove into my driveway.)
For the record, the AJC sent reporters to both conventions. Tucker went to the Democratic Convention, while our more conservative colleague Jim Wooten went to the Republican Convention.
Now, “Bluster Bill” O’Reilly likes to try to intimidate people. But in this case, he didn’t have the courage to do it in person. He probably didn’t want to bite off more than he could chew — as Clint Eastwood once said, “A man has to know his limitations,” and apparently O’Reilly knows his.
ANY critical reading of Cynthia Tucker's column shows it to be both a call for compassionate care and concern for ALL pregnant unwed teenagers. The headline of her commentary reads Concern, care for Palin’s teen should extend to all.
But somehow O'Reilly sought to interpret this column as a comparison between Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears. Clearly, both are teenagers, both are pregnant, both are unwed, both are going to be mothers. But to think that is the point of Cynthia Tucker's column is miss the point comletely.
Consider these two unambiguous phrases: "pious social conservatives" and "inside the magic circle of ultra-conservative approval." Tucker's column is clearly a strong critique of the lack of compassion directed by pious social and ultra-conservative conservatives towards families in this situation. Well known media figures Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are named, and samples of their commentary are given.
Either O'Reilly doesn't get it, or he decided to deflect the criticsm towards him as by suggesting that the column all about two teen agers.
