Regarding all of this Palin nonsense…
...I think Andy Whitman has a pretty good idea:
I have a crazy idea: let’s apply the same standards to journalists that they apply to politicians. For every breathless story written about a politician’s foibles, some other journalist gets to write a breathless story, after doing a solid background check and thorough vetting, of that journalist’s past. I know. It will never happen because nobody really cares about what a journalist might have done a quarter century ago. Exactly.
On a related note, I think most people would agree that, while it’s certainly not out of the question, the behavior of one’s child doesn’t automatically reflect, or speak to, the quality of one’s parenting, at least not completely. I know of several people who came from good families with loving parents, and still made mistakes (including the same one that Bristol Palin made). Conversely, there are just as many instances of children who have come from bad families who went on to live good, solid, productive lives. It’s certainly important, but nurture is not the whole story.
And if that’s all the case, then I wonder why so many people—on both sides of the fence—seem to feel that recent revelations say anything of value concerning Palin’s governing abilities. Certainly, there are more legitimate issues that can be raised and debated. Frankly, this whole business of rumors, conspiracies, and conjecture surrounding Palin’s children—and grandchildren, for that matter—merits an even lower circle of hell then its closest degenerate relative, “celebrity journalism”.
Comments
Matt Ralph
September 2, 2008 1:55pmWhile I agree that the focus on Gov. Palin’s daughter is disgusting I am shaking my head at why anyone is surprised by this.
The McCain campaign and the Palin family had to have had at least an inkling of an idea that things would get ugly once news of Bristol’s pregnancy got out.
If they thought it wasn’t going to get out or that the media would soft-pedal it they are as naive as that two-timer John Edwards.
Beyond that, I question why Palin accepted the nomination when her family is in crisis just as I questioned Andy Reid not taking more time off coaching the Philadelphia Eagles when his home life was in turmoil.
I also can’t figure out why evangelicals who are so gung-ho about women staying home and raising their kids are so excited about Palin’s nomination.
If she’s so pro-family why is she signing up for a job that would give her even less time with her family and ultimately subject her kids to the kind of tabloid news treatment they otherwise would have been free had they remained children of a governor in a far-flung state with 600,000 people.
Jason
September 2, 2008 2:06pmOh I agree, noone should be surprised by the increased scrutiny, least of all the McCain/Palin camp. And the timing does seem rather odd—but again, I’m not going to say that, as odd as the timing might be, it says anything of substance concerning Palin’s governing abilities.
As for the whole “pro-family” thing, I don’t think that a mother working in such a visible job is “anti-family” or inherently less “pro-family”. It’s only those things if you have a narrow view of what “pro-family” means (e.g., women should and must stay at home).
I certainly do hope that Palin spent time consulting her family and counting the cost before entering the fray. If it was a “spur of the moment” sort of thing, for lack of a better term, then that would certainly raise a red flag or two in my mind.
Jon Anderson
September 2, 2008 2:14pmWhen does the far right of the GOP stop claiming the moral high ground and bloody realize they’re as human and as tragically flawed as the rest of us?
All the crap about family values is just a bunch of lip service. Please stop already. You’re not fooling anyone.
Oh and by the way, how’s that abstinence program working up in Alaska, Mrs. Palin?
That said..
I, for one, am happy VP candidate Sarah Palin is a member of the NRA.
It will make it much easier for her to facilitate her own daughter’s shotgun wedding.
Walter Cronkite
September 2, 2008 2:19pmSee, what Mr. Whitman fails to point out is the fact journalists don’t go around claiming to be morally superior to the rest of society like many Christian conservatives in the GOP seem to do constantly.. He who casts the first stone usually ends up in a bathroom stall in Minneapolis.
Daniel Giesbrecht
September 2, 2008 4:35pmI am shaking my head at all these comments, save Jason’s. Matt thinks she needs to stay out due to “crisis mode”. Then throws in a similar comment about a father so as not to look sexist, but in reality people don’t say that sort of things about women the way they do about men.
Towards Jon Anderson, I’m sorry you’ve never heard it from a far right GOP supporter before, but yes, we are all tragically flawed human. That’s as biblical a principle as it gets. Apparently ‘we’ have done a poor job communicating that. A fact which I apologize for.
And Walter. Okay nevermind, if you’re not going to use your real name….
Daniel Giesbrecht
September 2, 2008 4:38pmand the subject at hand, timing. How SHOULD we have found out? Should Sarah have included it in her first speech as the VP candidate? Should it have been hidden as long as possible? I actually thought Obama’s comment on the issue was as on point as it gets.
Jon Anderson
September 2, 2008 4:49pmDaniel, It’s not that you haven’t communicated it. We don’t need to hear it from you. We already know we’re flawed. We don’t want you to tell us anything. It’s the never ending aura of moral superiority that hangs over the Christian Coalition faction of the GOP that disgusts at minimum 50% of America. Keep your religion in your church like the rest of have managed to do for the past 200 plus years. We’ll be fine without your guidance. Trust me. We look to God for that guidance, not some zealot in an Armani suit holding court in a warehouse-like church that Jesus would be appalled to see.
Daniel Giesbrecht
September 2, 2008 7:01pmIs it the aura of moral superiority the only problem? If so I’ll sure pass the word for what it’s worth. Is there anything we are allowed to say/have an opinion on/etc?
Additionally, can you give me an example just to be clear? The “zealot in an armani suit…” reference was surely an attempt, I just don’t know who you’re referring to.
Jon Anderson
September 2, 2008 7:15pmJim Baker
Ted Haggard
take your pick
any Evangelical preacher who builds a shrine to himself and collects money within said shrine
Matt Ralph
September 3, 2008 7:23amI don’t subscribe to the belief that a woman should stay home with her kids and I personally admire Sarah Palin for the example she is setting as someone who can balance a high-profile and stressful career with an active home life - hopefully in large part because of a supportive husband.
I simply don’t understand why evangelicals who preach that the biblical model is for a woman to stay home and the man to work are so excited about this selection. If there wasn’t excitement about her from this camp I would be questioning why they would take issue with a woman as pro-life as she is. That’s all.
That said, is it wrong for me to question the timing of a candidate, male or female, entering a presidential race when they have an infant son with Downs syndrome, a pregnant teenager, a son heading to Iraq and two other other children at home? Was it wrong of me to question John Edwards’ choice to run for president while his wife battled cancer? I’m not saying it’s wrong, just raising the question.
Daniel Giesbrecht
September 3, 2008 8:42amJon. I was repulsed by them before their respective scandals, and the embarrassment they proceeded to bring on those of us that call ourselves Christians was just insult to injury. As they are both a past tense in terms of their influence(if they ever had any), is there anyone more recently you’ve felt was brow beating you?
Jason
September 3, 2008 9:45amNot to go too off-topic—or devolve the comments into a mere shit list—but I’ll throw one out: Joel Osteen. Despite all of the extravagance surrounding his ministry, I wouldn’t quite put him in the same league as someone like Jim Bakker, because he seems genuinely concerned and wants to help people.
Unfortunately, much of what he preaches—i.e., “prosperity theology”—is heresy, plain and simple.
A couple of good articles on Osteen:
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/reactions-to-the-60-minutes-joel-osteen-piece
http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=903
Gordon Hackman
September 3, 2008 9:48amI’d very msuch like for Jon to answer Daniel’s question: “Is there anything we are allowed to say/have an opinion on/etc?”
One frequently gets the impression from some people that conservative Christians aren’t allowed to speak publicly about anything they think or believe, or to take public moral positions based on those beliefs without someone automatically accusing us of “having an attitude of moral superiority.” Instead, we are apparently supposed to “Keep your religion in your church,” meaning, of course, that we are supposed practice our faith purely in private and form our opinions on public matters based on what people like Mr. Anderson find acceptable rather than what our actual convictions are.
Jon Anderson
September 3, 2008 10:19amWhy is this just now an issue (post 1980 that is)?
Why is it so important for conservative Christians to be heard in the public arena?
Why wasn’t it like this in the 1970s or 60s or 50s or 40s.. you see my point?
Do you feel the 1950s for instance were morally bereft times? I just don’t understand it.
I apologize for saying keep your religion in your church, but you see, the rest of us do that. We go to church on Sunday, pray at home, etc. We don’t force other people to listen to our beliefs.
Gordon Hackman
September 3, 2008 10:29am“I apologize for saying keep your religion in your church, but you see, the rest of us do that. We go to church on Sunday, pray at home, etc. We don’t force other people to listen to our beliefs.”
So, in other words, you apologize, but not really, because you’re obviously right and we’re obviously wrong, and the rest of us should be like you.
I hardly think, either, that we are forcing people to “listen to our beliefs.” We are expressing a set of convictions about matters of public import. Those convictions are based on what we believe, which includes our spiritual beliefs. If you are able to wall your beliefs about the spiritual off from the rest of reality in a nice little compartment labeled “religious, and therefore irrelevant to public life,” then good for you, but not all of us can or do choose to do that. If you choose to not speak publicly about your beliefs, that’s your prerogative, but why should the rest of us feel the need to play by the rules you set up?
Jon Anderson
September 3, 2008 10:43amWhy is this just now an issue (post 1980 that is)?
Jason
September 3, 2008 10:56amIt could be argued that Christians, in particular, have often made it a point to make themselves—and their beliefs and convictions—heard in the public arena. Classic examples of this would be the abolition movement and the civil rights movement. These movements were often spearheaded by Christians, who were obviously very vocal and willing to use Christian beliefs, scripture, etc. to support their positions. (Of course, many non-Christians were active in such movements, as well.)
Also, it should be pointed out that noone really keeps their religious beliefs separate from the public square. A belief that religion should be kept “in the church” or “at home” is, in a way, a religious belief—a belief about the proper role of religion in society.
Jon Anderson
September 3, 2008 11:09amGood point, Jason. It’s true most of American history was spearheaded by Christians. We’ve been predominantly Christian from the beginning.
I guess my point was that only since 1980 or so have far-right (politically) Christians been a vocal and organized part of the GOP. The roots of this are what interest and concern me. Why do the rest of us Christians who may be liberal and less fervent in our beliefs feel like our God’s name has been sullied?
Jason
September 3, 2008 11:54amI think what we’ve seen since the 1980s, with the rise of the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority, is the increased “politicization” of religion. In other words, religious leaders becoming increasingly enamored with using political clout to bring about their particular religious agenda. Which has the side effect of narrowing the possible definition of what a Christian is—in other words, the association of Christianity with white, affluent, Republicans.
Now, I don’t think there’s any grand conspiracy to do this, but I do think that it’s been something of a gradual shift, a (perhaps) unintended consequence of the aforementioned politicization.
Certainly, there has always existed an inescapable tension between religion and politics—and not just in the U.S. and not just with Christianity. But anytime that religion and politics become too cozy, it’s bad for religion and good for politics.
Philip Yancey makes some good observations about the religion/politics confluence in his book, “What’s So Amazing About Grace”:
Matt Ralph
September 3, 2008 12:27pmWay to pull out the Philip Yancey quote, Jason.
Jon Anderson
September 3, 2008 12:31pmThanks, Jason. Good stuff all around.
Gordon Hackman
September 3, 2008 2:52pm“I guess my point was that only since 1980 or so have far-right (politically) Christians been a vocal and organized part of the GOP.”
Actually, I think there is an answer for this question but it’s more involved than I feel like getting into at the moment.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to equate God and the GOP, nor do I consider myself a member of the “Religious Right,” though my political beliefs are broadly conservative. I agree that the politicization Christianity is definitely a bad thing.
My objection was to the notion that Christians of a more conservative persuasion somehow don’t have the right to articulate their beliefs in a public setting or to take public stands on matters of import based on their religious worldview, but that instead we are supposed to keep our beliefs in the realm of the purely private. I find such a notion offensive and wrongheaded. Jon’s comments imply that he feels that way and that’s what I responded too.
Jon Anderson
September 3, 2008 5:49pmI started typing a reponse, but.. you win. It’s not worth arguing about anymore.
Peace!
Gordon Hackman
September 4, 2008 5:11am“It’s not worth arguing about anymore. “
I agree. I always end up expending more time and energy than I want to defend a position that in the end I wonder if I really am fully comfortable with anyway.
Peace to you as well.
Daniel Giesbrecht
September 4, 2008 10:15amAnyways, that Sarah Palin….
I think she’s gonna have to answer for a couple things she said in her speech last night. Particularly in reference to the “bridge to nowhere”. Now I really want to know if it was true she initially supported it. ‘cause that would not be cool in light of her comments about Barry changing his position on issues.
I did think she had a point when she said” it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.”
Jon Anderson
September 4, 2008 10:23amYeah.. Good ol’ Sarah. She claims they want a change from the status quo, but then complains Obama doesn’t have enough Washington experience. Isn’t she quaint? I half expected her to come out last night in full Amish gear.
Daniel Giesbrecht
September 4, 2008 12:30pmYou can do better than that.
almostcool
September 4, 2008 6:14pmShe was not only for the bridge until she was against it, but she KEPT the money anyway.
Full story at Anchorage Daily News
Oh, and she also used to be the director of Ted Stevens’ 527 group. Also, she managed to leave the small town of Wassilla over 20 million dollars in debt after her reign as mayor there. Sound familiar? She’s like G.W. Bush with lady parts.
Daniel Giesbrecht
September 5, 2008 9:27amI wonder what would have happened to that money if she sent it back, if that’s even an option. I read that whole Anchorage Daily article and was strangely bored by it, for some reason it wasn’t as juicy as I expected.