Christian culture loves, LOVES Sarah Palin. She embodies the assertiveness of the Proverbs 31 woman (not so much the meek qualities, but hey) and she has a gaggle of kids, a goateed husband, a Bardot bump in her hair (the higher the hair, the closer to God), a Downs baby that she didn't abort, and a wayward teenager which every Christian family also seems to have. Christians identify with this.
24 comments:
I know! What is with this Palin love fest?! Did you see that Katie Couric interview? Terrible stuff.
Also, just a frivolous side note I thought the pink suit and lipstick were a bad idea. Among other things...
Did you see the SNL spoof of Katie Couric's interview with Palin? Brilliant.
But yeah; the Christian culture loves her. Gag.
Rumor on the interweb is that there are 2 more increasingly embarrassing segments from the Couric interview yet to air...watch out world.
And she can see Russia from her front yard!
Sigh.
How keena are Christians with her" being picked for the token woman" thing?
I was just hoping the first potential VP woman would be more...well...*more*.
I agree, Stephanie. I like Sarah for most of the reasons you mentioned that Christian culture likes her, and because she's the most conservative person still in the race, and she's not been completely brainwashed by Washington. My only issue was how to recconcile her gender with my complimentarian views on leadership. If she's the head of our country and her husband's the head of her, doesn't that make her husband kindof the head of the country?
I had a similar issue with Bill and Hillary. Wouldn't electing Hillary be kind of a technical work-around for re-electing Bill? That's such a disfunctional marriage, I'm not sure the principal applies. Hillary kind of already was president in the ninties.
Maybe you should do a post on Christian Culture's views on gender roles. Our views are pretty controvercial in many circles.
Ironically, for Christian Culture, Palin considers herself a feminist. Pragmatism usually beats principal, and she's pretty.
I would venture to say that there is a part of the "Christian Culture" that doesn't like Palin for various reasons.
Couric was great. Can't wait to see the rest of debacle...um, interview.
All I can't think is this slogan,when it comes to Palin as VP:
"THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: the victory of style over substance"
(and yes, many will say the same of the DEMS....sigh)
So, what's the point? (Don't I have something better to do?)
Scott,
how does a complimentarian view hold with a worldview of the "Two Kingdoms". Not that you are a TK guy, just wondering what your take would be if you were?
I was rather impressed with Palin tonight. It seemed like the only bad times were when she was in the lamentable position of having to defend McCain when there was not much of a real defense.
Note, I also liked Biden tonight. Based only on this debate, I think I'd vote for a Biden-Palin ticket.
While I would say Lieberman "won the debate," I think Palin did more good for her ticket.
One thing I was really astounded by...perhaps the most significant thing I took from the debate is that Palin really projected an image that I think American Voters have never seen before.
I can't put my finger on it...but I could really see a lot of people watching the debate simply decide they like her.
My gf had a similar take. Anyone else?
Your blog is hilarious! I found it through Shari's blog. I'd love to see a post about pastor's/youth pastor's wives. The one about youth pastor's was hilarious.
Between you elections and ours, I want to leave North America quite soon.
What gets me about Christian culture up here is that they insist on voting for right wing candidates because they pay lip service to anti-abortion sentiments and other hot button topics for Christians - but never seem to notice that these people do nothing substantial to act on those positions.
I want to begin by saying I have been truely bless having come across your blog. It is fantastiC! I haven't heard anything on what university she went to? Do you know? Just currious. I hope you and your family have a blessed week. May God bless every aspect of your life. I will be reading as often as possible
As evidenced by the Katie Couric interview, Sarah Palin doesn't know much about anything. The debate looked good for her but she rarely addressed the question. She was lucky because that is a common practice in debates either because the person is avoiding a question or because they are still trying to finish off an earlier point. This format worked perfectly for all the cramming Palin had done for the debate. She is more than capable of rattling off the talking points so while she didn't make an ass of herself by any stretch, I certainly was not fooled into believing she really knew what she was talking about or knew about it a week before. But since so many have been duped by her just by virtue (?) of her Christianity, this debate could only have helped. Not enough though, according to polls! Phew!
My favorite quote about the VP debate came from CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider:
"Palin’s answers do not lack confidence, they lack coherence."
Bless her heart, all that time spent memorizing talking points... ;)
On the other hand, at least she didn't say that FDR got on TV after the market crash in the great depression...(a feat rather difficult to accomplish as the TV had not been unveiled to the public).
Furthermore, Biden's remarks on the powers of the VP are factually, logically, and historically wrong (but I bet CNN didn't report it).
Factually they are wrong because the Constitution outlines the VP role in both article 1 and article 2 and gives the VP the role of interpreting the rules of the senate.
Logically they are wrong in that even if Biden were correct in saying the Constitution only gave the VP powers in article 1, it would hardly help his cause since article 1 outlines the Legislative branch, the exact branch Biden was trying to say the VP had no authority in.
Historically they are wrong in that Thomas Jefferson, generally hailed as the ideologic patron of Biden's own party, spent a good deal of time in the Senate as a VP.
She also didn't say that America and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, as Biden did, which shows a rather bizarre disconnect with reality.
Nor did she misrepresent Iraq's budget surplus by about 100% or suggest drinking a beer at a place that doesn't exist anymore.
Would you have been more impressed by Palin if she, like Biden, just spouted out random pseudo-facts that made her sound informed but have no basis in reality?
I like Sarah because she's a REAL conservative. She could probably use some more experience before taking on such a serious role. The same can be said for President-Elect Obama--but TOO LATE.
There's also nothing wrong with using someone's stance on abortion as a character gauge. If you believe that abortion is murder, then you'd be foolish to vote for someone that is, in your opinion, in favor of allowing unborn children to be murdered. It's not stupid for pro-life people to vote this way. If you're pro-abortion then you don't see it this way.
Hmm. Real conservatives.
Do real conservatives redistribute state-collected oil revenues to the public? You know, "spread the wealth around"?
Do real conservatives value life enough to fly on an airplane the week before their down-syndrome child is to be born, thereby endangering the child's welfare? Even after having leaked amniotic fluid and having thereby basically gone into labor?
You're absolutely correct-- people with pro-life views have a right to vote based strictly on that issue. That's how "conservatives" win elections-- by banking up the votes they don't even have to work for. Very convenient, so long as you're okay basically being looked at as nothing more than electoral money in the bank. Politicians look at that and calculate: "as long as I keep talking about the sanctity of fetuses, I can do whatever the hell else I want to, and these simpletons will still vote for me!"
It's also a heck of a lot easier intellectually to vote based on one issue instead of the multitude of critically important and difficult issues that every voter ought to reckon with. But like I said, as long as you're okay with being hilariously simplistic and single-minded in your thinking, I'm sure republican candidates everywhere will take your vote for granted.
I know where you're coming from on a moral level-- it's hard to look past a candidate's pro-choice views if that's where your beliefs lie. I can fully sympathize. But there's a lot more to life than 9 months of gestation, and it's the simple truth that voting for people as personally unstable as John McCain and as woefully unprepared as Sarah Palin would make the world a much harsher place for that poor child once it's born.
There's that side of the morality too.
Micah,
It's inaccurate to suggest that conservatives are the only ones who bank on winning single-issue voters. Given that the majority of people in the US are pro-choice, and some militantly so, it's actually an anti-vote-getting stance to have.
Indeed, Obama essentially had a single issue he pounded on over and over again [far more than Palin, or anyone else discussed abortion]: "George Bush Sucks" His single issue was that a politician he was not even running against had failed.
Furthermore, in this case, it is not as though someone has assumed a polarizing stance that is uncharacteristic of the rest of their beliefs. Suggesting that Palin or anyone else is overplaying the importance of pro-life litigation is a rather tough case to make.
There are plenty of single-issue people on both sides of the aisle...it's just that not many center on the deaths of the innocent.
[Note to big doofus: calling abortion "murder" is inflammatory, irresponsible, and generally simply false. Murder is intentional killing with malice. Suggesting that those who undertake an abortion do so with malice toward the unborn is as untenable as stating conservatives are the only ones who bank on single-issue voters.]
I didn't suggest conservatives were the *only* ones who preyed on single-issue voters. In fact a lot of people choose to put their vote on one issue. That's fine-- my point is that doing so leaves you vulnerable to being taken for granted in the electoral process.
Your point about Obama discussing his issue more than Palin or anyone else discussing abortion goes to prove my point-- pro-life voters don't have to be courted, because they're default voters. Politicians don't give a shit about them. They're predictable, so they rarely have to even mention the issue. Easy pickins.
Palin et al. don't have to "overplay the importance of pro-life litigation." They hardly even have to bring it up. They know their opponent is pro-choice, so at most they have to mention that now and then. No more work required.
You're right, politicians bank on all sorts of voters-- single issue, demographic, whatever. But it is a political FACT that abortion is the single most consistent single-issue vote-getter out there, because it just never goes away. It is so infused with moral difficulty that it sticks unlike any other social issue. Gay marriage has made some recent gains, but it'll never eclipse abortion.
Like I said, I identify with the moral difficulties and the reasoning behind voting based on a single issue. I just think we ought to make our politicians work a little harder. And perhaps expect ourselves to do the same.
Anybody want to square her righteous pro-life stance with her patently irresponsible behavior as a pregnant mother?
Hey Micah,
Thanks for your response. I have no interest in either judging or defending Palin's individual choices, of which I am certainly hopelessly under-informed about [as, I would say, is everyone else other than Sarah Palin.]
I would like to revisit my point about abortion being so big because it is about the taking of innocent life.
Imagine what would have happened if someone had asked the presidential candidates about the possibility of a military draft given the wars we are in and ones we might be facing. [Unfortunately, the economy over-shadowed this as well as tons of other very useful questions. People were more interested in talking about Obama's past and Palin's wardrobe than things like the draft, the national debt, immigration or a whole slue of other important issues.]
Now, imagine that Obama said outright that he would not allow a military draft but McCain was more equivocal on the matter.
I think that would have been a single-issue that TONS of people would instantly latch onto. Why? Because at its heart is about loss of innocent life. And far more voters would have reacted to that for the very simple reason that fetsuses don't vote.
What's my point? My point is that it might not be so surprising or even irrational that there are so many such voters for whom this trumps all other things. It doesn't make those voters naive or idiots (not that you are saying all of them are), regardless of the effect on the political landscape.
Lastly, while there may be many people who may vote for a pro-lifer over that one topic, I still think the OVERALL effect of being pro-life is negative. If you gain 25% of voters for sure but adversely affect your chances with the other 75%, it's unlikely your stance has actually helped you.
This last election, where the most radically left politician [on this stance] to ever be nominated by either party in the history of the United States, would tend to validate that point.
Interesting thought experiment with any number of variables that render it questionable...but as I said before, I can fully sympathize with single-issue voters-- they're just not doing themselves or their fetuses any favors.
I don't buy your pro-life being a liability argument for a minute.
Interesting how the knockin' up of Sarah Palin's eldest daughter, Pepto-Bismol, got little response from the Christian evangelical talking heads. "Aww, it's all right, pookybear. We all make mistakes. God wuvs you, and so do I!" is probably the closest they've came to constructional rebuking.
But I'm sure these Pharisees have spent the past fifteen years collecting stones they're just dyin' to lob at Chelsea Clinton—y'know, just in case she so much as contemplates the unpardonable sin of navel piercing.
I don't buy David's argument either. The majority of voters (about 52% of them) consider themselves pro-life.
I'm a christian and I can't stand Sarah Palin! ugh just looking at her annoys me
I believe the term non-assholes use is "baby with Down Syndrome" - the PERSON comes first not the handicap.
Post a Comment