Adelle, I agree it has been in Tiger Wood's (and his family's) interest to keep his personal life out of the public eye. And his profession as a golfer does not require him to use his family in any way to promote himself. He has never, to my knowledge, tried to tell people that he's a model of moral values and has never tried to seek a position in which he would have power and influence over other people's lives. As far as I know, his reputation is simply built upon the fact that he is an exceptional golfer and a quietly polite competitor on the golf course. Personally, I don't think what he does in a bedroom with his wife or behind his wife's back is anybody's business except his wife and the women he has involved himself with. Moreover, I think what is currently happening -- with nine women coming forward -- has become a kind of feeding frenzy, with at least two of those women making multi-million dollar deals for their tell-all stories. Tiger himself, and his family, will only be hurt by it.
Sarah is a different commodity. Her website calls her "Alaska's Joan of Arc". She preaches family values, mentions God rather frequently, and, in her desire to win voter approval for a job of public responsibilty, quite frequently mentions her Down Syndrome baby and her motherhood as part of the package she is selling to garner votes and public trust.
When someone preaches, as she does, people look at the personal life of the preacher to see how well it reflects the values that are being preached. In her case, the first thing that was noticed was that she was a new mother of a handicapped child seeking a job that would allow her very little time to be with her baby -- a baby that was going to need exceptional personal attention, bonding, and environmental stimulation. Then they noticed that her teenage daughter was pregnant -- a reflection, some said, of the fact that Sarah had not put her own time priorities in the right place -- or at least not in the way that someone promoting "family values" might think is right-- in terms of raising a teenage daughter and supervising her behavior. And then there was the issue of the exorbitant Neiman Marcus bill for clothing for the entire family, including silk underwear -- by a woman who was claiming that she was budget conscious. It was not the picture of someone whom I would entrust with public funds, anyway.
Those observations were all relevant to the job she was seeking; when she put herself forward for the position, she was opening up the doors for family scrutiny, or at least as it pertained to how well she handled her job as mother in the family. Mentioning God a lot opened up the doors wider -- people always look for the hypocrisy angle.
Now all that was fair game, I think.
Then, after the lost election, things seemed to unravel on the home front as far as Levi Johnson was concerned, anyway. I don't know what happened there, but whatever it was, Levi went off on his own to make a name for himself, and part of that was to push Sarah under a bus. No doubt the media helped that along, offering him big bucks for dirt he might dish out about her. But he wasn't alone -- there were all those ethics complaints and McCain's staffers dishing out dirt as well.
I might have felt sorry for her at that point, but when I saw how she was continuing to invite the attention by going to the media and fanning all the controversies with her feisty comments, long after she had lost the election, and then garnering public support for her role as victim, I saw her actively seeking to gain advantages from keeping her name in the media, no matter what the topic was. The more she could claim she was being victimized, the more dirt came in, and she just kept fanning the flames like in a reality show. For all I know, everything is staged, and I don't see her actually suffering any time soon. Simply telling us that she feels victimized just seems hollow to me.
Now, quite frankly, I have not kept abreast of anything that Levi has said about the family which would cause her family any significant degree of discomfort. Any fool can see that Levi can't be trusted to tell the truth, and he is easily discredited, just like Jon and Kate. It is all show. But if you do know something that is likely to cause significant harm to her family, just let me know, and I will consider it.
In contrast to Sarah's using this and fanning it, though, Tiger Woods has clammed up and asked for privacy.
Consequently, I would be most inclined to give it to him if I could, but of course, I cannot.
Does that make more sense?
Do you see the difference?
