While the majority of Thursday’s CBS Early Show coverage of Sarah Palin’s convention speech was positive, at the top of the 8am hour, co-host Maggie Rodriguez talked to Palin’s sister, Heather Bruce, and asked: "There's been a lot of talk this weekend about family, talk that family is off limits in a campaign. Yet we see your sister with her kids, introducing them, showing them on camera, and she even mentioned you in her speech last night. So the question is, is it okay to use family in a campaign when it benefits the candidate and not okay when it's negative?"
Bruce responded: "I just thought it was okay that Sarah introduces her family just to show that she's a real American family. I don't really have an opinion on whether it's beneficial or not, but in my opinion tonight, I thought it was just a gracious act for Sarah to recognize because I think she realizes that without a lot of family support in her situation that, you know, this -- this has come a long way with a lot of family support." Rodriguez then followed up: "And you're okay that...she gave you -- gave you your five seconds of fame last night?" Bruce replied: "I don't seek the limelight, or the press. I was surprised, but I wasn't offended whatsoever. You know, it was pretty gracious of her. That was kind of nice."
Despite Rodriguez’s attempt to justify media attacks on Palin, CBS never took that approach when covering an adult Chelsea Clinton during the Democratic primaries. When Early Show co-host Harry Smith was asked about media coverage of Chelsea Clinton after she was asked a difficult question on the campaign trail in March, he admitted: "We're not exactly watchdogs here."
Here is the full transcript of Thursday’s 8am segment:
8:02AM SEGMENT:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: There were many proud Alaskans watching Governor Sarah Palin address the Republican National Convention here last night. One of the proudest was Palin's sister, Heather Bruce, who's in Anchorage, Alaska, this morning. Good morning, Heather.
HEATHER BRUCE: Good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: How do you think your sister did last night?
BRUCE: I thought it was a fabulous speech. We were so proud. We were very excited, as a family member, I was especially proud.
RODRIGUEZ: There was this adorable moment that was captured on camera. I'm sure you saw it, when Piper was licking her hand and kind of rubbing her baby brother's head. It seems like a real close-knit family. Can you talk a little bit about that?
BRUCE: Oh, we are. We are close-knit. There are 13 grandkids that my parents have, and we all live within a small radius of each other. So we're all each other's gatekeepers, watch keepers, baby-sitters, care givers. We are close, and the cousins love each other and the aunts and uncles, we look out for each other.
RODRIGUEZ: There's been a lot of talk this weekend about family, talk that family is off limits in a campaign. Yet we see your sister with her kids, introducing them, showing them on camera, and she even mentioned you in her speech last night. So the question is, is it okay to use family in a campaign when it benefits the candidate and not okay when it's negative?
BRUCE: I just thought it was okay that Sarah introduces her family just to show that she's a real American family. I don't really have an opinion on whether it's beneficial or not, but in my opinion tonight, I thought it was just a gracious act for Sarah to recognize because I think she realizes that without a lot of family support in her situation that, you know, this -- this has come a long way with a lot of family support.
RODRIGUEZ: And you're okay that-
BRUCE: And she was recognizing that.
RODRIGUEZ: -she gave you -- gave you your five seconds of fame last night?
BRUCE: I don't seek the limelight, or the press. I was surprised, but I wasn't offended whatsoever. You know, it was pretty gracious of her. That was kind of nice.
RODRIGUEZ: Lastly, Heather, when will you get to see your sister again? Do you know what her plans are now?
BRUCE: I haven't been told any details. I think my daughter's returning on Friday. I don't know if the Palin family's coming back with her or not. So all I know is that I thought Sarah was going to help deploy maybe Track and his -- the rest of his troop next week, so I'm hoping to see her in the next few days, if she's not too busy.
RODRIGUEZ: Oh, I'm sure she'll be quite busy. Heather Bruce, thank you.
RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Maggie.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Obama's Kids
September 4, 2008 - 14:30 ET by TyromacI seem to recall one of Obama's kids actually having a line at the convention standing at the podium with their mom. Guess that makes them fair game Maggie, right? Idiot.
just no Access Hollywood interviews, please
September 4, 2008 - 14:47 ET by mom_roxAs I mentioned in another post, are candidates supposed to hide their children? I thought Sasha Obama was adorable onstage when talking to her father on the big screen.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw, 1944
EXACTLY TYRO!
September 4, 2008 - 14:49 ET by political mavenTook the words out of my mouth.
Let's not forget that B.Hussein Obama says his wife is off limits even though she makes speeches..LOL
When Joh McCain mentions his mom, I guess they will go after her too!
Finally, this sister of Palin...obviously bright...good genes!
They are not campaigning
September 4, 2008 - 15:01 ET by ArcherBAnd that is the difference. When an ADULT family member actively campaigns, then they become fair game. I have not seen any of Palin's children on the stump giving speeches for their mom. And even if they were, they are still children (pregnant or otherwise) and therefor, off limits!
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary." Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Reflection
September 4, 2008 - 14:31 ET by acumenThe wife and I had this conversation last night. It would have been hypocritical for Palin to address the media's hit pieces on her family's personal lives during her speech last night after Palin's campaign stated previously that their personal lives should be off limits. On the other hand, simply introducing her family to the country/world makes perfect sense.
What a ...! "Oh, I'm sure
September 4, 2008 - 14:38 ET by soulpileWhat a ...! "Oh, I'm sure she'll be quite busy." I think my head just exploded with anger at that.
Not only this, but now candidates are not allowed to mention their families and thank them? So if a candidate says "I have a family," that means the media is now allowed to attack with vicious and vile statements?
Disgusting.
Whether it's right or
September 4, 2008 - 14:47 ET by JesseJacksonIVWhether it's right or wrong, if you put your family into the spotlight you should expect them to be attacked by someone in the media.
That's how it works.
If Obama or Biden had a 17 year old pregnant daughter you can bet people like Hannity would be questioning their "family values".
In the situation you
September 4, 2008 - 15:00 ET by motherbeltIn the situation you describe, most of us here would be saying "leave the kid alone" too. Only if that kid were being used as a symbol of something or other by the campaign would they be "fair game."
Biden's son
September 4, 2008 - 15:00 ET by SDSwas a lobbyist until dad started his run for President. (it might look bad)
Now he's being sued for fraud. Let's talk about him.
And you can bet they'd be told they're "off-limits."
September 4, 2008 - 15:04 ET by Indiana JoeSo why is Michelle Obama "off-limits," even when she participates in the campaign, making stump speeches?
Ditto Chelsea Clinton.
Oh, that was then. This is now.
Totally unsurprising hypocrisy, from the masters of "do as I say, not as I do."
So now Hannity is a News anchor
September 4, 2008 - 15:27 ET by Kirk HallPffft! He is not.
"If Obama or Biden had a 17
September 4, 2008 - 16:27 ET by ckc1227"If Obama or Biden had a 17 year old pregnant daughter you can bet
people like Hannity would be questioning their "family values"
Proof? Maybe you're simply projecting how you would behave.
Now hold on... to be fair,
September 4, 2008 - 17:03 ET by SnappyNow hold on... to be fair, when you introduce your family when running for a national position they are only fair game if your a Republican.
So just calm down.......
Thanks for the correction -
September 4, 2008 - 23:58 ET by soulpileThanks for the correction - I forgot to add that part in! Democrats are immune to this kind of trash!
Ridiculous!
September 4, 2008 - 14:43 ET by AlexaShruggedIt is absolutely insane that Palin acknowledging her family during her speech and them coming on stage afterward somehow makes them fair game for the media! Biden mentioned his family, they went on stage, didn't they? Let's go after every single one of them! Obama's wife gave a speech, his kids went on stage and SPOKE - let's get the elementary school gossip on them, too! Ridiculous! Leave the families, esp. the minors, alone!
http://www.AlexaShrugged.com
And Chelsea was off limits
September 4, 2008 - 15:07 ET by HypocriteHaterAnd Chelsea was off limits even when she was an adult campaigning on behalf of her mother. She was allowed to refuse to speak to the press, for crying out loud!!
But kids who are simply introduced or acknowledged by their GOP parents are now fair game according to the morons in the MSM.
I think this article
September 4, 2008 - 14:53 ET by suzycreamcheeseI think this article demontrates a knee-jerk response to Republicans' criticisms of Michelle Obama. The Obama camp kept saying that his family was off limits, that you can attack Obama but leave his family alone. Well, Michelle wasn't left alone and I think the liberal media feels justified with every vicious attack on Palin's family.
They can't comprehend the difference in attacking a grown woman who injected herself into her husband's campaign, and an 18-year-old and a newborn whose mother happens to be running for VP. The left would have a valid argument if Republicans attacked Obama's little girls. But Republicans don't sink that low.
Michelle Obama was a
September 4, 2008 - 15:04 ET by motherbeltMichelle Obama was a different case. She was out there speaking on behalf of her husband; she was, in effect, campaigning with him, and for him. She made political statements.
Palin's family fair game, Michelle isn't?
September 4, 2008 - 15:05 ET by nkviking75Let me get this straight: If Sarah Palin merely mentions her family and brings them up on stage, they're fair game for the media, including the minors. If Michelle Obama, an adult, goes out and campaigns for her husband, making pretty radical statements along the way, she's out of bounds.
Ri-i-i-i-ght.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
What I find most amazing
September 4, 2008 - 15:10 ET by Indiana JoeWhat I find most amazing about this kind of story is, don't these people realize what hypocrites they are? How is that possible? Do they think the public doesn't notice? They must really think we're stupid, and that is leading to their downfall. They've become a joke, and they don't even know it!
I haven't found a single person who doesn't get this. The MSM is shooting themselves in the foot daily over Palin.
Now, THAT'S entertainment!
Everyone in politics and
September 4, 2008 - 15:18 ET by JesseJacksonIVEveryone in politics and most who talk about policts are hypocrites.
Sure, everyone does it...
September 4, 2008 - 15:27 ET by Indiana JoeJust keep telling yourself that.
Uh, Everyone?
September 4, 2008 - 15:29 ET by Kirk HallHello.
Something the msm talking
September 4, 2008 - 15:37 ET by bigtimerSomething the msm talking heads would say...
Some people say...Experts say...most people agree...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Yes, everyone. They all
September 4, 2008 - 15:48 ET by JesseJacksonIVYes, everyone.
They all lie, will say whatever it takes to get elected. Then accuse the other side of doing the same thing.
Here's a question: the
September 4, 2008 - 17:05 ET by balboaHere's a question: the Palin family released a statement that Bristol was keeping the baby by choice. Now, should this be a part of the discussion when Sarah will be politicking as VP to eliminate that choice?
Actually, that's a pretty
September 4, 2008 - 17:40 ET by fitzfongActually, that's a pretty good point, balboa. But I suspect your argument actually benefits the pro-life side. You see, your crowd hijacked the term "choice" as a euphemism because they lacked the courage of their convictions to call it what it is...abortion. Classic tactic of the left, soften the language to make something very offensive sound inoffensive, focus group it to make sure the uneducated masses will swallow it, then jump on a high horse to try and put pro-lifers on the defensive for being against the practice of abortion. Repeat the lie ad nauseum until it becomes generally acceptable. Tell me, bal, when some gasbag from the left speaks of a "woman's right to choose", why does that gasbag never finish the sentence? A woman's right to choose what? Fish or chicken? Red or white wine? Jets or Giants? Bristol Palin made a choice not to have an abortion. Perhaps if we weren't forced to subsidize the irresponsibility of others, some would exercise their right to choose not to get pregnant in the first place.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
Not "classic tactic of the
September 4, 2008 - 20:27 ET by balboaNot "classic tactic of the left," classic tactic of any political movement.
Pro-choice is just as easily a reaction to conservatives painting the left as death-mongers.
The statement I've read about Bristol's choice really doesn't give an indication about what that choice was. To me, if you use the word "choice," you want to imply the classic abortion / no abortion choice, not the a decision to give the baby up for adoption.
I am old enough to remember
September 4, 2008 - 21:14 ET by fitzfongI am old enough to remember when those who were in favor of abortion rights were commonly referred to as "pro-abortion", while those against abortion were referred to as "anti-abortion". Then Mario Cuomo had to have it both ways so that he could appeal to union members, anti-death penalty advocates and other mostly Catholic Democrats who opposed abortion. So, he dissembled. He claimed to be personally opposed to the practice but unable to allow his religious views to interfere with the law of the land. Eventually, this morphed into the "pro-choice" euphemism...and the NARAL/NOW gang's rather silly "anti-choice". Refer to an individual commonly known to be "pro life" as "anti-abortion" or "anti-abortion rights" and that individual would likely have no problem with the designation. However, refer to a self-described "pro choice" advocate as "pro-abortion" or "pro-abortion rights" and watch the fur fly. Someone who is pro death penalty has no problem being called "pro death penalty"...individuals against the death penalty have no problem being called "anti death penalty"...yet most in favor of abortion rights insist on being called "pro choice". A crisis of conscience, perhaps?
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
I know many, many people who
September 4, 2008 - 21:26 ET by balboaI know many, many people who would not like to see anyone get an abortion, especially family members. BUT, they believe that women should have that CHOICE.
I'm sure they would like
September 4, 2008 - 22:39 ET by fitzfongI'm sure they would like them to have all kinds of choices. Yet somehow the abortion movement has made the right to abortion synonymous with the word "choice". Sorry, that's just dishonest.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
bal
September 5, 2008 - 08:33 ET by Cool ArrowBUT, they believe that women should have that CHOICE.
Does your choice of person (they) insulate you from sharing your opinion?
Is abortion on demand your position, or are you really speaking for "them"?
At this point I'd just like to be excluded from funding that specific medical procedure "they" demand.
Rocky & Bullwinkle '08
At this point I'd just like
September 5, 2008 - 10:19 ET by fitzfongAt this point I'd just like to be excluded from funding that specific medical procedure "they" demand.
Me, too. As the saying goes...you don't appreciate what you don't pay for. Maybe if the taxpayer wasn't forced to offset the cost of most of the "choice" and the "choosers" knew ahead of time the full responsibility they would assume (with either "choice"), the potential "choosers" wouldn't put themselves in the position to have to make such a "choice" so often.
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan
fitzfong.blogspot.com
To paraphrase
September 4, 2008 - 18:53 ET by stratmanTo paraphrase Fitzfong:
You presume the "choice" was between keeping the baby or abortion. In fact, you want to make that the issue to attempt to twist respondents into fits and spasms. Sorry. Nope. Not happening tonite. I dislike it when people pretend to be making salient points when in fact they just want to mess with others. I believe that's called "trolling".
The reality, most likely given what we know of the Palins so far, was that the choice would be between raising the baby herself or giving up the baby to someone else, such as adoption. (do not get excited and try and steer the conversation into the bs of who's baby is Trig or, so help me, I ll have Blonde come over there and rip out your undescended testicles)
But let's enjoin your proposition that abortion was a choice. Bristol Palin, as a pregnant minor, would be able to make her own decisions about her healthcare. Parents would not be able to stop her from having an abortion. So what's your point? Should the Palins have committed a felony and kidnapped their daughter? Should Palin have declared marshall law in Alaska in order to prevent her daughter's actions? Brilliant.
You're going to have to brainstorm a little bit harder to try and mess with us bumpkins on NB's.
Take your master baiting elsewhere.
Who mentioned Trig? Calm
September 4, 2008 - 20:24 ET by balboaWho mentioned Trig? Calm down already...
FAMILY IN THE SPOT LIGHT
September 5, 2008 - 08:18 ET by welderforeKenneth J Roberts
Then why do they condemn any one using Obama's family in the arena of politics ? it is nothing but a double standard and the people are seeing it more and more as what it is . they holler about someone saying something about Michelle but no one has attacked his children they are decent and innocent and they deserve better from America, the children no matter the age should be out of bounds but the left and I include the news media in that group has chosen to go after all of her family and try to make our she is an unfit mother , that is detestable . abc cnn and others have used anything they deem proper and they don't have any discernment about decent only whats going to discredit her , use it . I am praying that McCain wins by a landslide and Obama leaves the scene permantlt .
Please Understand
September 5, 2008 - 08:47 ET by cocodrieWhen the left-wing extremists see the Palin family they see five people who should have been killed by abortion. Sarah is slapping them in the face by choosing life for her children rather than death by abortion. That is the wrong choice and is unforgiveable.
NOTE TO BALBOA:
September 5, 2008 - 08:57 ET by cocodrieIf pro-abortion is not pro-death please tell me what happens to a baby during an abortion. The truth is the baby dies a gruesome death. The prisoners at Guantanamo should be so lucky.