Do you believe that in politics, families are off limit?
 

Do you believe that in politics, families are off limit?

Or is a family a reflection of the candidate?


Historically (at least as far as I've ever seen), family has never been off-limits to politics.... Mostly because politics does not have immutable rules or ethics. Obama's recent assertion that it does is admirable, if not realistic. If our politicians want to act like family is off-limits for the moment, I'm just fine with that. I'd 100% support we act like that for as long as we can. Even if the lines drawn are rather arbitrary. At least it's something.

Just don't be surprised when family matters eventually does become an issue. Someone will someday find something somewhere and spin it in such a way that we become convinced that a family matter is a critical decision point.

Personally, I'm a tad jaded and pragmatic when it comes to candidates. If we had a candidate that was 100% shithead, but would rock our political socks off, working political miracles, I'd have a hard time not voting for him. I guess I just don't see politicians as role models, maybe that's the difference. Family reflects on a person, I guess I just don't care as much about the person anymore.

Case and point: I'm sure George W Bush is a really neat guy, and we all know how that turned out...

And let's not forget Jimmy Carter.... plus he had Billy to suffer.

Unless the relative takes the stump for the candidate, relatives should be hands-off (especially children). Once a relative inserts themselves in to the process... then have at it.

I think a person's family says a lot about them. I think attacking family members is pretty low, but observing the state of the family gives some insight into the character of the candidate.

The Obama family is just beautiful--those daughters are so self-possessed and adorable, and Barack and Michelle are clearly very much in love. I know there have been some prepared moments lately where we were supposed to get that impression, but I have seen that in off-the-cuff moments since he first started running, and I believe it to be genuinely the case. Tells me a lot about Barack Obama as a man, right there.

The current instance of family stuff is Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy. While it's obvious that the girl is going through a lot and has a lot to deal with, I don't think it's off limits to point out the failure of abstinence-only education as illustrated by this case. It has been an abysmal failure, withholding from our children the information they need to keep themselves safe. The out of control teen pregnancy rate (trending back up after many years of decline--but never dipping below #1 in the industrialized world) is a significant problem with conservative policy that is highlighted by this right-winger's unfortunate daughter's situation.

Yes. I don't think family should ever be attacked--but I do think that a candidate should have a "nothing to hide" attitude. If they do have something to hide, then it's going to reflect on their character (particularly within the nuclear family). How can a candidate's immediate family--including their choice of spouse and how they raise their children--NOT reflect the candidate, in some way or another? Consistency does matter, even if people are "human" and mess up. You cannot preach one way and then go the other, when it comes back to you.

I guess I'm of the opinion that if you can't keep your own house (marriage, kids) in order, why should you expect me to entrust you with the responsibility of our nation? Especially when you think that abstinence-only education is the way to go for 300 million people, and yet you can't even manage to convince the 5 people who have been under your authority since birth of that message? Right.

Not that I was anywhere near voting for anyone remotely like McCain or Palin anyway, but I do hope that this seriously fucks up his campaign. :D

Time was that families were off limits. That changed in the 80's and 90's for whatever reason. See the right's villification of Hillary in '94 and '95 for the current high water mark of that particular practice.

Personally I think they should stay off limits. Family members don't run for office. They are not in the spotlight nor do they make decisions, particularly children.

I like what Obama said about this, particularly his restatement that he would fire any staff member involved in fanning these flames. If it turns out one of them was involved, I hope that he will keep his word.

Generally, family should be left out of it. None of us are judged in our workplaces by how our family behaves, and I don't see it as an issue for politicans either. The Shrub's daughters have known drinking issues, Jimmy Carter had Billy, etc - none of that is relevant.

To be fair, she was being brought in as an active but unelected member of the administration, with policy accountabilities and everything.. In my mind, that makes her fair game.

Although you may be right that the tone might have been set right there.

Even with Palin's anti-abortion pro-chastity stance, the whole Bristol issue should maybe have been off limits. Where I think it tripped up was when attendees at the convention, and Palin's own statement talked about how wonderful it was to add to the family and that Bristol would have to "grow up" much faster.

Because, don't you know, unwed teen mothers are the Solomons of our age.

I think a much smarter reponse would have been, "we love her, it's a family issue, thank you."

Not, "Jamie Lynn Spears has had to face this....."

If a candidate's family is involved in policy or demonstrates clearly an attribute that would directly effect the way the candidate might serve in his or her role, then they're within limits. If it's just a family scandal that has no bearing on politics, then it's not really something that should be in the public dialogue so far as the candidacy.

If the family member is an adult, then yes. Rodger Clinton ok.... Chelsea NO. Billy Carter ok.... Amy NO. Biden's adult sons, McCain's wife, ok..... Obama's kids, Palin's kids NO.

Oh wait..... Biden's sons aren't getting any coverage on the news networks or front pages....... THEY ARE EMBROILED IN ALL KINDS OF SCANDALS BUT Palin's pregnant 17 yr old daughter and Down's syndrome baby is.

THIS IS NOT THE PARTY I LOVED AND SUPPORTED FOR MY ADULT LIFE.

It was the GOP that was supposed to be uncaring, cold, grinding out dirt trying to win by destroying their opponent.

IF THIS CONTINUES..... I WILL NEVER SUPPORT A DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE AGAIN. THIS IS FUCKING PATHETIC AND YOU WHO SUPPORT THIS ARE SHAMEFUL.
-----Added 2/9/2008 at 01 : 47 : 44-----
Maybe just maybe, that was a statement from a mother in the public eye saying she loved her daughter unconditionally and supported her and that her daughter may have made a mistake BUT that the baby would be loved and welcomed.

Maybe she wanted it public because the she knew the fucking left winged news like CNN, ABC,CBS, NBC and so on would use it to try to hurt not only the ticket but her family. Maybe she watched the news read the papers and knew the attacks were coming so she wanted to make a public statement that she supported her daughter.

THAT JUST MAYBE WHAT WAS MEANT.

This woman shows more strength and I admire her bravery and honesty.

pan, what kind of parent would go forward with the country's most important and time consuming campaign knowing his or her family had challenges like this at home?

If, by some sort of lunacy, I were asked and had these issues, I would say no. No way in hell. It boggles my mind that Sarah Palin thought it was a good idea. What did she think would happen?

You think it's honesty, I think she threw her daughter under the bus.

Maybe because she is strong. Maybe because the press would find out that Palin had been asked and had to turn it down because her daughter was pregnant.

I would not want my child to carry guilt over a mistake they made that prevented me from achieving success. Chances are the press would bring it out anyway.

I love my son. If my son made a mistake, got a teen pregnant and I was in politics and offered the VP nomination, I'd take it and I hope to Hell I'd have the strength and class Mrs. Palin show in handling it.

If I turned down that offer solely because of my son's issue, then my son would feel that guilt for the rest of his life. And I may someday resent him, no matter how much I would want to believe I wouldn't.

But if I stood up and said, "I love my son, I see my son being responsible and mature in this time and I may not have handled this situation as well as my son when I was his age." My son realizes that he has my unconditional love. And to me that is more important than any office, any job, anything else outside of family.

I find it pathetic that people who proclaim to be caring and supportive of family ...... what I once believed was the Democratic strength........ to be so willing to destroy a 17 year old girl just so they can win. Those who support this thinking are pathetic excuses for human beings and in no way represent the Democratic Party I once loved and believed in.

Every family faces challenges. Having a baby is not "punishment", it is something that people can and do manage. Normal people do not stop living because of a pregnancy. Normal people do not stop loving their daughter if she gets pregnant outside of marriage.

I think she expected normal people to understand.

Or, leave your daughter with the life long scar of being the reason her mother did not become VP? Take a breath, count to 10, and put this issue in perspective.

I think the family should be off limits. With that been said, questioning Palin's stance on abstinence only education is not off limits and questioning her judgment to give a speech and illegally fly to Alaska all after her water broke is not off limits. These two things are examples of Palin's judgment and stances and are very relevant to any discussion involving her becoming our Vice President.

You're scaring me Ace...... :)

I believe I have. There are sacrifices that every parent makes for their kids. If Bristol would be scarred because Governor of Alaska was the most successful her mother ever was, then there are other issues at work. As has been said in this forum, nobody ever said on their death bed that they wished they had spent more time at the office.
And that to me is more important than any office, and job, anything else out side this family. Do you not see how many times you contradict yourself?

That last sentence is exactly what I would say, followed by, "Governor of Alaska is more success than I ever dreamed of, so we'll be happy out of the lime light".

How can you say you're all pro-family values and then say it would destroy your son to know that he kept you from success - success being that next rung on the career ladder. I always thought the democratic party's measure of success was balancing a career with a family without forcing parents to abandon their children for a job, not glory hopping up the political chain.

If I said I couldn't run because my son made a mistake.... and that was the reason I chose not to run..... then I would scar him.

If I took the offer and stood up next to my son and showed him the respect and unconditional love I have for him and that I CAN ACHIEVE SUCCESS WITH HIM NO MATTER WHAT.

Then I am far far from hypocritical. Mrs. Palin shows that to me. I have utmost respect and admiration for her right now. It goes far beyond any politics it goes to my being a parent and wondering if I could ever have that strength and class she shows.

Did the Clintons abandon Chelsea, did Jimmy Carter abandon Amy, did JFK abandon his kids..... oh wait it's just the women that can't do this..... but does the Democratic Party not support women who want families and success???? Or just those women who share the same political views?

At first you say it would hurt your family if they knew they kept you from climbing the career ladder to nationwide acclaim, then you end saying your family is worth more than any job. If the previous is true, you haven't convinced your family of the latter.

Mark Warner did it. Why can't Sarah Palin?

I think a candidate's children should be off limits. It is difficult when a candidate trots them out at rallys and photo ops and uses them to illustrate what great family values they have. As I recall the Clintons took a lot of flack for advocating public schools and being against private schools when they enrolled their daughter in a private school.

Is it out of limits to critisize Palin for advocating abstinence only and no sex education and point out their pregnant daughter to illustrate what may be a failure of those positions? Is it hypocritical to ask for privacy in your childs pregnancy decisions when you advocate getting the government involved in every family's and young girl's pregnancy choices? I think the answer to the above is no but I can understand why some may feel differently.

While I agree that the kids themselves should be left out of political warfare, the public wants to know more about the candidates they elect. We've learned, over the years, that anyone can spew meaningless promises and viewpoints. The actions of the candidates tell us a lot about who they are and if we can trust or believe in them.

As a parent (of three girls aged 14+ as most know) I have to wonder where her priorities are. The candidate's agenda will impact her daughter's life. Is this appropriate parenting or is she using her daughter and this issue to bring her strong views into the limelight, perhaps to convolute the issue for unsure women voters?

Is it the realization that you love him is more important than anything? Or are you saying family is the most important thing? Or is this something you'd be doing for the greater good and your kid can fend for him/herself because you'd raised him/her so well?

I don't see this as a party issue. It's a platform issue. :orly:

Her stance on abstinence and education can be questioned. I am not making it an issue in how I vote though. Obama's stance is to start teaching it in Kindegarten. So we see extremes on both sides. Neither will be national policy, thank God.

Why did she fly to Alaska? Perhaps to be with family so that they could all share in the birth of a new child? I have heard worse things happening.

If this is the worst you all can find on Mrs. Palin ya all have lost and are grasping at straws.

Frankly, I would find a run of the mill scandal more comforting.

And no, she did not fly to Alaska to share in the birth of a child, unless it's somebody other than her daughter, who is 5 months along. She is there while the McCain camp contemplates a possible exit strategery for her.

The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.

Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom.

nytimes.com

It's a realization that I love my son, would believe that I had a lot to offer in the position and that by taking it I could achieve many things for my family and the country I love.

Family is most important thing in the world.

Why does their have to be a choice between the greater good and my kid. Maybe just maybe I can achieve a greater good for country WHILE achieving a loving and caring household where my kids know they are loved unconditionally and are supported no matter what.

Now try being realistic about the demands of the job. One of Biden's main points is that he commutes home every day and thinks about the working families along the way.

First I'm confused...... did she fly illegally to Alaska after her water broke or to get out of the VP ticket?

Secondly, I think the NYT is full of shit. The WORST thing McCain could possibly do right now is drop or have Mrs. Palin drop off the ticket.

I doubt very much the GOP would ever drop her now.

You seem to have forgotten how these things happen.

They start with her saying, "in retrospect....."

He thinks about working families as he is flying on a private jet, sipping campaign and eating fillet minion and lobster? I bet he switches to thinking about global warming on his chauffeur driven limo ride from the airport to his front door.

Sorry, I need a break.

Speaking of judgment, let's question Obama's judgment in his "spiritual leadr", in his dealings with Resko, in his friendships with Bill Ayers..... Oh wait we can't.... they have been used ad nauseum, nothing there, that's just hateful..... lol.....

Double standard hypocrisy much?

Cool....you mentioned Rezko again!

Think Keating and $3billion cost to taxpayers :)

I'm not sure what Poppin Jay is referring to but I am referring to her flight while in labor which is against FAA rules. She lied to the airlines so that she could fly and put both her and her babies lives at unnecessary risk. The baby was over a month premature, was known to have downs, and she chose to take a long flight instead of going to the hospitals right where she was. If she is willing to risk her child's life so recklessly then what would she do as President?

IMO there are PLENTY of reasons to be alarmed by Ms. Palin that have nothing at all to do with her family. Her policies are plenty enough for me to know she's not my candidate.

Uh, no... Biden commutes home, by train, from DC to Wilmington, Delaware every night. That's what Poppinjay is talking about.

yeah, well don't let reality get in the way of your persecution fantasies there, ace.
this is another populist right ideological staple, the hallucinated "liberal elite" that exists solely to take stuff away from the righteous petit bourgeois, a kind of principle of generalized expenditure (look it up) dogging out those obsessed with the privates of private property.

i will say that i am looking forward to the moment this particular modality of conservative implosion finishes itself off so that we can move on the the many many substantial reasons not to elect john mc-cain et al.

Let's ask John McCain.

TFP: Senator McCain, what is your position on whether or not a politician's family is fair game?

Sen. John McCain: Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

– Speaking to a Republican dinner, June 1998.

TFP: Lovely. Thank you.

In Canada you rarely hear about politician's families, if at all. You see the spouses in photo-ops with visiting dignitaries but that's about it. No one cares about their chocolate cookie recipes or fashion sense or even their thoughts on policy.

When they do surface in the news, it's for entertainment value only and there's no national handrwinging about the fate of the nation. Here are some stories that come to mind over the past couple of decades that I can actually remember: (in order of spontaneous recollection)

1) Prime Minister Joe Clark's Daughter is hot and got married to some captain of industry.

2) Prime Minister Stephen Harper got some ribbing for giving his young son a firm handshake rather than a hug on his first day of school. This played well into Mr. Harper's stodgy conservative persona but the smirking died down after a couple of days.

3) Aline Chretien slammed the door on an intruder at 24 Sussex drive. There was much hand wringing about the Prime Minister's security detail.

4) Jack Layton (the leader of the NDP) is married to Olivia Chow, who is also a member of Parliament in his party. There has been no hand wringing about their relationship that I can remember.

5) Trudeau got divorced and slept around. This got a lot of press at the time but isn't why he's remembered as one of our most controversial Prime Ministers.

So the snarky response to these non-stories is that we're too boring to have any real scandals. I suggest you look up the Airbus affair and Shawinigate.

The government here is about to call an election and I doubt anyone but a politico-junkie could name Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion's wife. Is he even married? I have no idea and nobody's talking about it. We're talking about whether the conservative govenment will gain a majority and what the consequences will be. I can't claim a more engaged public up here but I can guaranteee that nobody cares a moose's nostril what Lynn Harper brings to the table. No media outlet will ever interview her or any of the leaders' spouses.

I think a politician's family can be fair game in a few circumstances:

1.) Nepotism scandal

2.) Kickback scandal

3.) Behaviour grossly (this is a key word here - we are none of us perfect) contradictory to a stated platform.

I think this last one allows for some scrutiny of Mrs. Palin's family predicament but in the end, it shouldn't be the sole story during the convention.

So why do you guys care so much?

I could ponder the influence of the Christian Right and their desire for "Family Values" standards or Jackie Kennedy worship or the entertainment value of a sanctimonious media, thirsty for content with an over-reliance on Punditry, or the fact that your election discussion has been dragging on for over two years now (ours will be over in 30 days)...

But I'm going to settle on the gut feeling that you guys are truly, truly desperate for better days.

I hope you get them.

QTF

i think the candidates family only matters in so much as how it affects (effects?) policy, or if it illustrates how the politicians positions suck. or gross behavior. palin's kid got pregnant. palin is anti-abortion/sex-ed, and therefore there is relevance. but it shouldn't be about the kid so much as her policies, the kid is just illustration of the point.

if a candidates kid killed someone, or committed some other crime, are we supposed to ignore that behavior? just cause they're "a kid?"

only relevant issues involving the family should be brought up. otherwise, no, they should be left alone.

Huh? Hillary spoke of herself as a "co-president." She then proceeded to assemble a health reform committee of her friends, illegally have closed meetings, and illegally pay these friends with taxpayer funds.

How in the world do you designate her as "off-limits?"

I had forgotten all about that. Fantastic find.

What does QTF stand for? Is it Latin?

"Quite true, friend." :D

Dear Ace,

Please actually do some research on the candidates. Joe Biden does not fly home every day, sipping on champagne, eating filet mignon. As stated above, he gets on the cheap train, and rides it from DC to Wilmington, DE every day.

Guess his net worth.

$250,000,000? Bzzt. That's Mitt.

$25,000,000? Bzzt. That's 7 house McCain

$100,000,000? Bzzt. That's outdoorsman Sarah Palin.

$100,000 ding ding ding! Get your stereotypes out of your shed, Ace. Some people sit on their asses in Alaska, and democrats don't sleep on money matresses collected from the masses.

Vote for who you want, but at least be informed.

In fact, Biden had the lowest average net worth in the Senate (from 2006 figures, ranked 108th, which included incoming and outgoing Senators that year, which explains why more than 100).

Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del) - 2006 | OpenSecrets

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/weal...?cid=N00001669

McCain has the eighth highest.

John McCain (R-Ariz) - 2006 | OpenSecrets

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/weal...?cid=N00006424

but none of these facts will stop the right from making biden into an aspect of the Persecuting Other.
and the fashioning of the Persecuting Other will be central to such success as the right has over the coming months.
watch how they do it.
see if it works.

sheesh?

And here you ask us to consider whether and how THIS idiocy is rubbing off.

Sheesh indeed.

otto--i suppose i should have cross-referenced that last post with the other thread i put up last night which centers on statements from mc-cain's campaign manager concerning the distinction between this campaign and issues/contents....forgot. look there, you'll understand.

Not to return to the topic or anything, but...

I had another thought about this last night, and it was a thought about hypocrisy.

See, right wing social conservatives like Palin REALLY want to tell me how to live my life. If Vice President Palin had her way, birth control would be off limits. God help me if I wanted an abortion--that would be a criminal offense and I'd be locked up for murder. She wants to put her cute little button nose deeeeep inside my personal business and make sure I'm living my life consistent with her values. Nothing about MY life is personal, as far as her policy is concerned. But the minute it's about HER life and HER family, well NOW it's personal and off-limits and I'm a political schemer and general bad person for pointing it out.

My heart goes out to Bristol Palin, honestly it does. I've known pregnant 17-year-olds, and while I can't say I know what she's going through, I've at least been with others while they went through it, and it's a major blessing that she's got the love and support of her family (because it's not always that way). But to say that turn-around is somehow not fair play when it comes to reproductive policy is the very definition of disingenuous.

If you haven't noticed dictating how we live our lives comes from BOTH sides.

Come on, now you're just tagging the thread. If you have something to say, say it, don't just make announcements.

I answered in length at this thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2517695

I was going to post in the above reply but did not want to hijack this thread by changing the subject.

We have a winner, but you're too narrow-scoped. It's the whole damned neoconservative branch of the Republican Party (which seems to be 80-90% of the current elected officials).

Remember folks, this is the party who's vice president slammed a fictional Murphy Brown for having a fictional baby out of fictional wedlock on a TV show. They've established for decades now that they are the party of family values. Single parents, children out of wedlock, sex before marriage, all morally reprehensible and all anathema to Republican Party values.

Now they want us to elect a vice president who raised her kid to be, according to them, morally reprehensible?

I ain't buyin'.

I'm not sure I agree, but even if I did, it wouldn't change my observation of the hypocrisy of having THIS personal private matter be personal and private when MINE aren't.

I agree with some of the posts previously put up. If your family's behavior or structure blantantly flies in the face of your stated policies, then some inquiry on those subjects is appropriate. If the Republicans don't think that some evangelicals are shitting themselves over this latest information, they're nuts. Sure, the policy guys in MN might be spinning it as pro-family values YAY!...but every one of them I know in real life thinks it looks really bad for Palin, in light of their shared position on abstenance-only education. I just wish that the level of discussion and inquiry into the matter was of a more intellectual bent, and less salacious. Ask a question about the policy Palin supports, and how she reconciles her daughter's situation to that policy.

In that sense, no I don't think a candidate's family will ever be, or should be off-limits. The type of questions / scrutiny applied is another issue.

QFT

Ok, got it, thanks. I'm not really up on my internet speak so I am unfamiliar with many acronyms.

You actually think Biden's real net worth is $100,000? O.k., it is possible, I read the book "Die Broke" about 10 years ago and the author discussed many strategies on how to control wealth and be "broke".

I exaggerated and no factual basis regarding my comment about Biden and the private plane, I now understand that he takes a train home and is a "regular" guy.
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 11 : 37 : 42-----
Who was #1? John Kerry.
Who was #3? Edward Kennedy
Who was #9? Hilary Clinton

After those three I got bored, but what was your point? Perhaps that Biden and Obama both have problems with saving, investing, living within their means, and generating wealth for their families. Is that it?

{added} O.k., I just looked up Bidden on the Open Secrets Website for 2006. I cut this from the page:

First if his net worth is negative after being in the senate since 1972, am I the only one who whould have a problem with that?
Second, how many Senators do we have?

ace, on behalf of the universe, I officially apologize for the existence of facts that are inconsistent with your world-view. I know, it's very rude.

I don't get it. On one hand I was corrected and I acknowledged my error and my inappropriate comment. On the other hand I questioned information I find hard to believe, but then if true I find the data points to perhaps another concern.

Ace, there are 2 senators for every state. If you look carefully at the table on the page you cite, Open Secrets Net Worth ranking of senators, 2006, Biden is ranked 108 because many senators are tied for 99th position, etc.

Also, if you read the methodology explanation at the top of the page, ... it explains that they included assets and liabilities in their calculations. While I am not up to par on the details of Biden's finances (it could also include debts, such as a mortgage, etc), I think it is clear that he is far from being one of the wealthiest senators out there, at least as of 2 years ago. For me, excessive wealth is more of a problem than the other extreme... and given your earlier criticism of Biden as riding around in jets and living the privileged life (and I appreciate your admitting that you were wrong about that, btw)--I would think you'd agree with me, and not see his low net worth as a problem.
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 12 : 35 : 39-----
rat... c'mon, is that necessary?
-----Added 4/9/2008 at 02 : 04 : 03-----
And here I stand corrected as well...

Well, I have to say that while I'll buy that Joe Biden may not be Pimp-Daddy Mega-millionaire, I have a real hard time believing his net worth is only $100,000. That just seems really hard to swallow to me. It's possible...but I'm smelling tax-shelters and/or S-Corps...something. No, I didn't look it up, and no I don't have time to look it up. I realize this isn't a PUB discussion, so maybe I should look it up, and I'd love to have time to look it up - maybe I'll make time before November. Just chiming in. Regardless, on the OP - I stand by my earlier statement.

Are families of Candidates fair game? They shouldn't be (and I echo Fresnelly's comments from Canada) BUT when the Candidate hauls their kids out to photo op after photo op I have to wonder if the Candidates think they can have their cake and eat it too? If you want to hold yourself up as a paragon of "traditional family" you had better be ready to have your family scrutinized.

Don't want your family in the spotlight? Don't offer them up on a platter.

Family is fair game when the application of the politician's professed policies landed their family members in a predicament. A politician who advocated Abstinence only education yet has a pregnant teenage daughter, to pick a random example, has opened herself up to totally justified criticism. In cases like that the family member's troubles call into question the politician's judgment and sincerity.

Or to pick another one, a politician who crusades against drunk driving, but whose wife is arrested driving drunk after blowing, say, a 1.2, should expect to be crucified, because he's a hypocrite if her helps get her off, a heartless bastard if he doesn't, and pandering if he packs her off to rehab.

Politicians with handicapped children who try to cut funds to handicapped children should expect their children to be discussed.

Politicians who have adopted children not o their race should be able to call those kids off limits, unless they hire the same advisers who dragged their child into the last election to defeat the candidate with a race baiting push poll.

Homophobe politicians' homosexual children are never off limits.

Gun crusaders on either side who have relatives involved in gun crimes or on the receiving end of gun violence should expect them to be dragged out for cross examination.

The less successful family members of those who tout the success of their family members are fair game.

In short, the family is off limits unless the politician brings them into it. They all do sooner or later.