Attached below is an interesting article from Time magazine examining the voting implications of McCain choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. Some of my friends who are (former) Assembly of God members, similar to Palin, have had some interesting things to say about the denomination in general as well as some of its stances.
That being said, the article has some interesting insights on how McCain's choice will affect Evangelical voters across the spectrum. Personally, her evangelical conservatism has turned me off even more to McCain and his party. She represents many of the extreme right/pro-oil/anti-environment/pro-war stances typical of many Conservative Christians that I am frankly embarrassed to be associated with as a fellow Christian.
In addition, I'm also extremely annoyed with both parties and the media for how they have taken the issue of her pregnant daughter and either used it to boost Palin's anti-abortion credentials, or used it as further evidence that young women need further government services to help with pregnancy. Leave the issue alone, leave the poor girl alone.
While my uncle and I disagree on this point, I personally think that Palin was the nail in the coffin of the Republican Party this term, and that McCain's choice of Palin reeks of desperation, not smart politicking. I think she will continue to be more of a liability than an asset in the upcoming two months... but I may be proven wrong. I look forward to her debates with Biden.
The article can be found here.
But McCain and his aides may not want to say hallelujah just yet. While Palin is inspiring rhapsodies from the lions of the Christian right, her appeal to more moderate and younger Evangelicals — as well as independent swing voters — may be limited.
1 comments:
A shrewd political move. That is what the Palin nomination was. It harkens back to the 1988 election of George H. W. Bush and his nomination of Dan Quale. The rap on the first President Bush was that he was a blue blood, New England liberal Republican and that he had no regard and respect for the conservative Christian base which had mightily contributed to the successful election of his former boss, Predident Regan. Quale was the epitome of conservative and Christian (at the time) and despite his pitiful performance in the campagne he solidified an important political base and helped President Bush the first win. The other thing that helped in the victory was that the Dukakus campagne was totally incompetent. That being said it is traditional for all parties to pick a VP candidate who brings a unifying constituency to the ticket and Mr. Biden is no exception to this rule either.
I have suggested that Mr. McCain will be the next president, that is my view. I do feel that Mrs. Palin brings to his ticket a constituency that he desperately needs. That he already has 70% is not good enough as it is perceived that the election will be decided by mear percentage points. Mr. McCain's selection is not cynical, it is pragmatic. I will also say that Mr. Quale had little or no say in the first Bush administration, which has historically been the life of a VP.
Gravitas was a word that made the rounds in the year 2000. George W. Bush did not have "gravitas." So, he nominated Dick Cheney who brought with him the "gravitas" that was lacking in W's resume. Oh, the left had a field day on that and demeaned the Republicans murcilessly for such an overt surrender to the charge that Mr. Bush was a light weight. Now, ironically, we see the shoe on the other foot and not a word about Mr. Biden and his selection as giving "gravitas" to the Obama effort. That is precisely what Mr. Biden brings to the party. When the media speaks of him bringing internation relations experience with him what they are "really talking about" is gravitas. International relations is a euphamism for gravitas poorly disguised. This is just an historical aside.
I do not sense that Mrs. Palin is as much a light weight as was Mr. Quale. She seems much more worldly and experienced and she does more than bring Evangelical types to the table. She potentially brings disaffected women too. From my perpective she was a brilliant choice as she in fact energized the seemingly moribound campagne of Mr. McCain. As of the typing of this note Mr. McCain has, for the first time, taken a lead in the poles and is 4 percentage points ahead of Mr. Obama. I know first hand that conservative Christian types are now excited and energized about talking about the race and dreaming of potentially winning it.
As for the idea that she represents a more traditional that current evangelical ethos...this may be correct. However, the debates will be most interesting to see if this is truly the case. She has been pretty beat up in the media so far with all the mainstream commentators using "small town mayor" and "only governor two years" and "troopergate controversy" as they used gravitas in 2000. So, who is she really and what is it that she truly beleives? We shall see and that makes this campagne season so very interesting now.
As for her daughter, she was forced. She says very little about it. She acts more than she says and bringing the young man on stage was in fact a statement. I remembered when Queen Elizabeth was criticized in the British tabloids for wringing a pheasant's neck. The next weekend she, having said nothing all week about the issue, wore a hat with pheasant tail feathers atop it. I had to love her for that! It must also be remembered that the media let loose a story that was totally bogus about the youngest down syndrome baby being actually a grandchild and this forced the pregnancy to center stage, though it could hardly have been kept there for long. Still, leave the kids alone.
Her public and private consistancy regarding life issues is fair game in my mind. It is refreshing to see someone overtly walking the talk. I see this in President George W. Bush at times too. He is compassionate with his liberal spending on social programs and he has been bulldog tough in his stance as to what he thinks should be done about Islamic terrorists and nation's that support them. This apparent inability to change directions is often seen by his opponents as him having a "tin ear", another media term that echoed for weeks and weeks. Yet, it could be that he is simply a man who walks his talk and believes in what he says. All this is my personal view of some of his stances. I am not implying that I believe he has been totally correct nor do I beleive his administration to be unblemished by error. At the same time I will never, ever expect an apology from a sitting president for that is a power play a president must not respond to, he must simply act. One exception would be if one is having oral sex with an intern while in the Oval Office talking to Senators and Representatives on the phone about our nation's business. Enough of the Clinton years already!
I am looking forward to the debates. They are Mr. Biden's to lose as he is the one with all the experience and she is a mere housewife...out of place. She need only hold her own. If she does well, then the Obama campagne is in real trouble as Mr. Obama is seen as less qualified than her, resume wise, and he is running for the presidency.
Post a Comment