« A blast from the past | Main | Somewhere pigs are flying »
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Have we forgotten how to weigh the issues on their own merits?
I have to say that as much as I enjoyed many of the comments on last week's post (the one with the text of Gov. Palin's convention speech), I was troubled by others... and not for the reasons you probably think.
I've made no secret of my admiration for Gov. Palin, and for Sen. McCain for selecting her as his running mate. And perhaps that's where the trouble started.
One commenter on a previous post seems to have confused the current presidential race with a Jr. High School Student Council election, remarking that in lieu of foreign policy experience, Gov. Palin could simple "make earrings and swizzle sticks out of moose poop" and then "pass them out as gifts as a diplomatic gesture, cross her beauty queen manicure[sic] fingers and say her prayers". The mind boggles. In one short comment this individual was able to ignore all relevant facts about the candidate, insult organized religion, set the women's movement back about 50 years and suggest the use of moose excrement as an art medium (which I have to admit was kinda funny).
I suppose it didn't occur to this commenter that as Chief Executive of the only U.S. State that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia), and which supplies our country with a sizable chunk of its fuel (some estimates as high as 20%), Sarah Palin has more foreign policy experience than Senator Obama... and more leadership experience than either Obama or Biden! In fact, of all the current candidates, only McCain, with his 22 years as a Naval Officer, has more leadership experience than Sarah Palin. That, in itself, is rather sad in an election year. But if one side has real world leadership experience on their resumes and the other doesn't... well, expect it to become a campaign issue.
I made it clear at the outset that I was encouraging the intelligent readers of this site to agree or disagree with the content of Sarah Palin's speech, but that I wanted everyone to read it before weighing in. I (mistakenly assumed) that this one line introduction would make it clear that the content of the speech was the topic, not the person who had posted it (i.e. me).
But clearly some of you felt that my posting the text of her speech so quickly on the heels of endorsing the Republican ticket was simply a partisan expression of my approval, and that I needed to be taken to task over it. It apparently never occurred to some that by putting Palin's actual words down in black and white I was inviting - challenging, actually - readers to set aside rumors and innuendo and deal with what actually came out of a candidate's mouth.
Sadly, some of you ignored my challenge and launched unsubstantiated / ad hominem attacks on me, and by extension anyone foolish enough to have admired any part of her speech. I actually would have put up with a lot of rhetoric in the comment board had it been connected to parts of the speech or specifics of the campaign platforms. But even that seems to have been too much to hope for.
In the end I opted to stay out of the comments altogether after a close friend, with whom I have enjoyed (seriously!) many political disagreements, offered the following:
The mind boggles that you think [Gov. Palin's speech] was anything other than a shallow, jingoistic, snide and cynical low brow political attack. If you think her speech was anything resembling great political oratory, you ought to have your head examined.
Here's the deal. Even if I'd introduced the text of her speech with a favorable comparison to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or Martin Luther King's 'I have a Dream' speech, the onus was on the commenter to point out what in her speech was 'shallow, jingoistic, snide, cynical and low brow'. Instead, this gentleman (and I assure you, he is normally the quintessential gentleman), offered a classic fallacious argument that 'I' was flawed if I didn't agree with his assessment, and that 'I' needed to have my head examined if I considered Gov. Palin's speech to be 'great oratory'... even though I'd never offered an opinion on the speech.
I will now, though.
I did not think it rose to the level of the speeches I mentioned above. To be clear, I hesitate to even refer to them in the same thought. I don't even think her speech was particularly graceful (that's the writer in me talking). But it was fantastically effective and exactly what was required under the circumstances. And the fact that she didn't write it herself is neither bad nor unique in a presidential election. Once they came out of Governor Palin's mouth, they were her words... and those words were placed before you so that you could easily address them (for good or for bad). Most of you simply didn't bother.
For months the Obama campaign had been playing up the Democratic Senator's experience... and these claims had gone largely unanswered. They had also offered endless criticism of various aspects of the Republican platform, to which McCain had deferred his response. The timing of the primaries and conventions made the Republican Convention the first time that the McCain team could respond fully to the Democrats and give full voice to their own agenda. Quite simply, until both sides had named VPs, only half the story could be told.
In her convention Speech, Sarah Palin was finally able to respond on behalf of the Republican ticket to claims made by Obama, and accusations leveled by the Democratic campaign. So it is not surprising that much of her speech did just that (lowbrow and cynical as that may seem to some). However, I thought she did it with remarkable good humor, and was pleased to see that she limited her negative remarks to people and issues that had already been placed before the public by her opponents. If anyone wants to call that snide and cynical, be my guest. But be honest and hold all the candidates to the same standard.
As to the accusation of jingoism, let's be clear about exactly what that means: Jingoism is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy". In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats of or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others. [source]
Other than ending her speech with the words "G-d bless the United States of America" (which, to some, might suggest an unseemly desire that G-d not bless any other country), the only reference to America's national interests I heard was a reasonable reference to her unwillingness to abandon America's interests in Iraq when our hard-fought objectives were in sight. Personally, I consider that patriotism... but that was actually one of the points she made. The small town Americans with whom she most closely identifies, are always patriotic ('proud' in her words) about their country's standing in the world... not just when it is popular or expedient to be so.
Another remark she made about small town Americans was, in my humble opinion, a well-deserved slap at the facility with which the Democratic candidates seem to change tone and content depending on the audience they are addressing. She said that "in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. As far as I was concerned she earned my vote right there. Say what you want about either of the Republican candidates, but they sound the same in Scranton as they do in San Francisco. The only difference is the reception they get in those places.
I will end by quoting her speech when I say "there is much to like and admire about" Senators Obama and Biden. There is also much to admire about both Senator McCain and Gov. Palin. After years of lopsided match-ups where one side or the other could barely put together a coherent sentence, I would think that everyone would be excited by an election season filled with the prospect of issues discussed and positions argued by four eloquent candidates.
Now that we finally have two major parties with candidates that are able and willing to discuss the issues, why is the public resorting to ugly politicking? Have we been denied quality candidates for so long that we've forgotten how to weigh the issues on their own merits?
Posted by David Bogner on September 7, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c581e53ef00e554eb2c0d8833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Have we forgotten how to weigh the issues on their own merits?:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
You wouldn't believe the attacks I've gotten from A) a troll, and B) friends who dish out charge after charge against her, many of which turn out to be outrageously unfounded rumors churned to the surface by her detractors and pedaled into the susceptible consciousness of so many who support the opposition.
I am the first to admit I do not agree with everything she represents, I do not agree with some of the things she's done, but I am voting for McCain and Sarah (we're on a first name basis now, because I love her) first and foremost, because of their unwavering platform on national security. They will protect the United States, they will reinforce strong ties with Israel, they will defeat America's enemies.
That much I have faith in, and know that they would not let me down. The Obama camp...I simply do not trust him and Biden to do the right thing to protect the American people. I don't want him to go on fact-finding missions (a little more than hypothetically) to Iran so he can have dialogue with a psychotic terrorist who wants to murder Jews and destroy Israel.
The politics of the day has so polarized our country that I think it actually impedes some people from making clear choices and being able to target the issues versus the person who is in support of or not in support of the issues. I'm sure Obama's a lovely person and I'd love to have a beer with him and Senator Biden...I just don't want them running our country is all.
Posted by: Erica | Sep 7, 2008 4:18:40 PM
Dave - couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo, and thanks for putting up with us neanderthals in your "living room".
BTW, FWIW, the Gettysburg Address was, at the time, one of the most scorned speeches ever given by a Chief Executive. Of course, Abraham Lincoln was also one of the least popular sitting Presidents in history. Before we sneer at Governor Palin's speech, let's give it a while to put it in historical perspective. No, it was no Gettysburg Address; on the other hand, I don't think Sarah Palin has any trouble knowing what the meaning of "is" is.
Posted by: psachya | Sep 7, 2008 4:59:35 PM
I don't know if this is new or I was not 'clued in' when I was younger but it seems that all parties (media, pundits, commentators) are NOT arguing issues between the parties but spend most of their time attacking candidate/politicians personally, with those attacks drowning out any civilized discussion of issues. Republicans did this to Clinton with Lewinsky et all to the exclusion of anything positive and the Democrats did this to Bush II saying that he is evil since He stole the election so anything he tries to do is ultimately wrong.
David, you were asking for a nuanced review of Governor Palin's speech but I think many commentators reverted to the attack mode that becomes the norm of American politics.
Posted by: Aharon | Sep 7, 2008 5:01:01 PM
Amen. I think both sides have brought a decorum (relatively speaking) to the elections that we have not seen in years and years. This is the most exciting election I have had the opportunity to take part in, and I look forward to the next 8 weeks of hearing all sides. While Sarah Palin's speech is not going to change my personal politics, it was a down right pleasure to hear an articulate woman speak as a Republican. It is a marvel to me that in my lifetime I am witnessing people of color and women duke it out on a national stage as candidates in the most important election in decades. What a great time for our country!
Posted by: Ezer K'negdo | Sep 7, 2008 5:19:45 PM
I am not surprised by any of the comments. Politics has been a dirty business for a long time. Even the Founding Fathers engaged in it.
All I know is that this is the second straight election in which I am underwhelmed by the choices. Obama and Palin lack the sort of experience I want in my leaders.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 7, 2008 6:52:58 PM
Well, you could've at least called me out by name. I commented on this below, in the previous thread.
Psachya, it is not exactly true that the Gettysburg Address was universally scorned. I could go into that with you at another time. And it is hard to argue that Lincoln was unpopular. Controversial, yes, but he did win two elections in a row, albeit under bizarre circumstances. By the end of his second term, people were starting to get it about him. He is certainly my favorite president.
Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Sep 7, 2008 7:00:36 PM
So......How was the the head exam? Who was the examiner ?
Posted by: letzan | Sep 7, 2008 8:17:22 PM
Well said David. I must confess, that I am reluctantly impressed with both Republican candidates (I stand politically to the left). If I were American, I would be voting for the McCain/Palin ticket. My husband is astonished by this. I regret to say that I don't think they will win, because too many Americans have been swung by the adverserial politics of Obama and the possible "glamour" of an Afro-American in the White House. I hope I will have to swallow my words.
Ref your Meme post, check out the following link for the "Hit" on your actual day of birth. Http://www.joshhosler.biz/NumberOneInHistory/SelectMonth.htm
Posted by: Noa | Sep 7, 2008 10:24:50 PM
Apologies, I meant to type African American!
Posted by: Noa | Sep 7, 2008 10:26:50 PM
Erica ... People have been forwarding me dozens of copies of every screwball interviewed who has anything remotely negative to say about Gov. Palin as if to say, 'See, she really is a bad choice'. People really need to get a life.
psachya... Hey, I opened the door and invited everyone in. I guess I have at least some of it coming. :-)
Aharon... And the news folks are doing their version of 'investigative journalism' by finding Alaskans and parents of disabled kids who are not fond of Sarah Palin. Well done.
Ezer K'negdo ... I wish more people thought like you do.
Jack ... Um, Jack... I hate to mention this, but this is the second time you've mentioned Obama and Palin. You do realize that Sarah is the VP pick, right?
jordan Hirsch... I'm mostly annoyed that even now you haven't owned up to the fact that I didn't express any feelings whatsoever (good, bad or indifferent) about the speech before you unloaded on me. You were wrong to assume facts not in evidence (i.e. I could like her as a candidate but hated her speech) and wrong to engage in a personal attack on the me rather than addressing the words that were posted on my site. Own that and we can move on.
letzan... the results were negative.
Noa... It will be a very close race that will probably be decided by either a bunch of senile old folks in Dade county, or the Supreme court. But it will be a great campaign. :-)
Posted by: treppenwitz | Sep 7, 2008 10:55:11 PM
Here's an example of the preconceived antipathy and small-mindedness that I found hilarious, and I hope you enjoy it as well: it comes from a syndicated columnist, one Mary Mitchell, whose home base is the Chicago Sun Times. And I quote:
"It is scary that a woman who hails from a small town in Alaska felt so at home on the national stage being downright mean.
And for some of us, Palin reinforces every stereotype, rightly or wrongly, of what we think white people think in those small towns.
"We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity and dignity," she said.
Does that mean people who grew up in urban Americas are less honest, less sincere and have less dignity?"
end quote, from http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1146696,CST-NWS-mitch05.article
Posted by: Barzilai | Sep 8, 2008 12:17:48 AM
I am a lurker. I rarely comment, but almost always read.
While I admit to disagreeing with you in almost every way on this Palin thing, I'm also one of those people who live in Washington, DC (hey, give me a vote!) for whom politics is fun, my job, and more often than not reaching across the aisle doesn't even begin to describe the situation. Most importantly, of course, rational people can rationally disagree.
That being said, I don't understand what this paragraph from above means:
"I suppose it didn't occur to this commenter that as Chief Executive of the only U.S. State that borders two foreign countries (Canada and Russia), and which supplies our country with a sizable chunk of its fuel (some estimates as high as 20%), Sarah Palin has more foreign policy experience than Senator Obama".
The most I can find is that she did some work with fishing permits in regard to Russia. Seriously? I am not attacking, nor asking in comparison to anyone on the top or bottom of any ticket, but does that pass a laugh test of "foreign policy experience". I don't think so.
She has some strong points and some weak points and I mostly disagree with her on everything.
But she has NO legitimate foreign policy experience, especially in relation to Russia.
Posted by: Tovitim | Sep 8, 2008 1:22:30 AM
I too am a very loyal reader of your blog, and have become quite attached to your family from your wonderful posts and pics, but I am a lurker, and have never posted before.
To me, Sarah Palin is a woman to be admired by both men and women, and feared by the Liberal Left. She has only been on the scene for a few days and has already inspired many of my left leaning friends to consider actually voting for a Republican.
I have to admit that when the news first leaked, I was stunned that she was the pick - I was expecting our former Governer Ridge - but after listening to her convention speech I was hooked.
I am not a debater, or intelligent enough on the political scene to comment as well as the others have, but I can tell you that my father, one of the biggest male chauvanists (sp?) on the planet, is ready to buy a McCain Palin sign for the yard and a bumper sticker for his truck! I think that the line regarding Scranton and San Francisco is what did it for my father - there is no BS with her, or Senator McCain. When they say "Straight Talk", that is what they mean.
There is no question that Senator Obama is a very intelligent man, and can move you with his words, and Senator Biden is to be admired for the terrible circumstances that he has been able to overcome with his family, but I cannot see either of those being enough to have me vote them as the leaders of our country.
Mr. Bogner, you have made me understand so much more of this political stuff in your past few posts than all of the political pundits on CNN MSNBC, ABCDE, etc. have in the past few months. Thank you.
Posted by: Terri in Pa | Sep 8, 2008 3:34:49 AM
It is hard to know what are real "facts" and what is hype/derision put forth in the media. For myself, I go with my beliefs and values, and try to choose the candidate that comes closest to fitting my personal politics. I have never registered (until this year) as either Dem or Rep for this reason.
Living in "the middle," as my NYC mother-in-law calls everything between NY and LA, I have a unique perspective on local and state economy, jobs, overall "avirah" if you will. That, in addition to my rather liberal views concerning certain social issues, motivated me to register as a Democrat this year, as I feel President Bush, in his well-meaning attempt to defend our country's interests, is a bit out of touch with the people who actually live in the USA.
I also would like to continue living in a secular country, and I am rather shocked at the ease with which our Rep candidates and their supporters freely quote the New Testament and invoke God's name inappropriately in political situations. If I wanted to live in a religious country, I'd live in Israel.
HOWEVER that does not detract from the effectiveness of Governor Palin's remarkable speech, however scary I may find her beliefs (and as a Hockey Mom, I thought that line was hilarious. I park in the rink lot next to a woman who has a bumper sticker on her car that reads, "My Hockey Mom Beat Up Your Soccer Mom" :-))
I sincerely hope that all four candidates can manage to keep the relative decorum they have going. I am looking forward to actually voting FOR a candidate, rather than AGAINST one.
Posted by: Ezer K'negdo | Sep 8, 2008 5:05:26 AM
David- I agree 200% with your last paragraph above.
So here's an issue where within the last two days I've seen some "sound bites" from Obama and McCain. On Health Care.
(Big caveat disclosure- What I've argued in the past on principle is now a personal issue as of this past Thursday. I woke up to discover a "fog" limiting about 85% of the vision in my right eye. Friday's visit to an opthamologist revealed small possible plaque-blocked optical arteries. My regular doc was informed, I'm in his office at 8:30am tomorrow to see what round of tests will be required. And what possible procedures need be done after that. Needless to say, I'm a bit nervous. Financially more than anything else. We talk a lot about the "uninsured" without talking about the potentially "under-insured." So, yes the two candidates positions resonates personally now...)
McCain on health care: "We need patients and doctors making their own decisions without the government running things."
Obama: "My health plan will give you the option of retaining your own insurance. If you don't like it, or you're uninsured, you will be able to obtain insurance that will guarantee you the same coverage that members of Congress enjoy. Furthermore, the government will negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs for those in government run health insurance programs. People should not have to weigh adequate health care versus bankruptcy."
Okay, let's look at this. McCain seems to be saying "leave things as they are." We all know the system is not limited to patients/doctors. It's the insurance bean-counters who get inbetween. Prescription drug prices, malpractice lawyers driving up premiums, a whole host of issues that in my view leave no group involved blameless. Now I'm in 2(!) plans. The union's- a PPO, and Blue Cross. The Blue Cross insurance- individual- that I have costs me about 15% of my annual income. No prescription plan, big deductions and annual ceilings on expenses. But that's all I can offord. It's a busted system for folks like me. To dismiss it as an issue, as McCain seems to do is- simply put- unacceptable.
Now here's something interesting. My uncle- as well as many self described conservatives- used to say "government needs to be run like a business." What Obama is talking about above in terms of negotiating lower prices is already done by the VA. Vets have a $7 co-pay on their prescriptions. Well, if government is a "business", this seems like it's doing its job in the best interests of its clients. We the people. Yet when the idea was floated to expand the VA's program to Medicare/Medicaid, the present "conservatives" blasted it as "price controls in disguise." Horsehockey! (as M*A*S*H's Sherman Potter used to say). That's horse-blinder ideology, not "running government like a business."
Seems to me that Obama is on a better track of health care issue discussion/analysis than John McCain. Who, by the way, is bringing in more and more of the Bush/Rove bunch into his campaign. So much for the "maverick-for-REAL-change-image..."
(Caveat/disclosure continued to close. Hopefully this will mean little more than now seriously dusting off the exercycle downstairs. And not bailing out of more gigs than I already have, and can't afford to continue doing. Especially the 9/18 appearance on the Conan O'Brien Show [okay, shameless plug :-)]).
Be well all... don't blow off those morning walks...:-)
Posted by: Michael Spengler | Sep 8, 2008 5:28:51 AM
David,
I know exactly who I was speaking about. I like McCain, but the man is 72 and that is enough for me to be very concerned about who his VP is.
If I criticize Obama's lack of experience I have to do the same with Palin. And the facts are the facts. I am very concerned about her, too many details make me question her values and judgement.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 8, 2008 6:44:45 AM
David,
A couple of points:
1. We don't know enough of the political opinions of Sarah Palin to make any evaluation of how she would govern
2. American football fans generally want the backup quarterback to start. That's because they haven't seen enough of him to make a reasonable judgment, same with Sarah Palin.
3. She is a former tv sports reporter, it is not surprising that she can read a teleprompter.
4. My objection to Palin is that she has not demonstrated a respect for the process. When she was mayor, she wanted to fire the librarian because she wouldn't remove books that Palin found objectionable. She did fire the police chief because he "intimidated her." As governor, she fired the chief of public safety for not firing her sister's ex-husband. That is eerily reminiscent of Dick Cheney. Richard Nixon also had an enemies list, but he had enough respect for the system and legal process to find some reason to prosecute them.
5. Many years ago, I asked our State Senator what the difference was between lawyers and non lawyers as legislators. He told me that there were good and bad legislators of every background, but lawyers by virtue of their training were able to see both sides of issues. One of the problems with the Bush administration has been its absolute inability to see two sides of any issue.
6. Given the absolute disaster that has been the Bush administration, in domestic as well as in foreign policy, I would still like to know how a guy who has supported that disaster over 90% of the time could possibly represent change. And if he does, in what way will he change from those policies.
7. Oh, and Edward Everett, the most famous orator of the day and who gave a speech right before the Gettysburg Address, knew he had heard something special. He was quoted as saying something like, "I flatter myself to think that I said as much in two hours as you did in two minutes." An by the way, Lincoln's prior experience was as a US Representative who was voted out of office for opposing the Mexican-American War.
Joe5348
Posted by: joe5348 | Sep 8, 2008 6:57:01 AM
" As governor, she fired the chief of public safety for not firing her sister's ex-husband. "
No, she didn't--she DID fire him but two years after the investigation and disciplinary action against ex-bro-in-law finished. He was fired for back-dooring the legislature for more money after Palin had already told him he didn't get more money to featherbed his department until he filled 58 EMPTY POLICE OFFICER POSITIONS and did something about endemic alcohol abuse in the department. I worked in County government for years--her actions were both legal and appropriate. I actually checked out this story because the only person I could see claimng any connection between the firing and Wooten was Monaghan, the guy who got fired---if he is fired for incompetence, no pension; if he's fired wrongfully, he gets compensation. Follow the money, folks. You can find the whole mess at the Anchorage Daily News archives. Have fun!
Posted by: aliyah06 | Sep 8, 2008 7:38:48 AM
The strong emotions this US presidential election is arousing, reminds me very much of the fire and heat of the political debate here in Israel during the eighties and the nineties.
We're not there anymore, I think. Was it the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin that calmed us down somewhat? Or the events of September 2000 and the following Terror War? Or perhaps the fact that these days the Israeli left, although still dominating the media and the judicial establishment, is a minority, with little chance, if any, of being able to head a government coalition any time soon?
Posted by: Imshin | Sep 8, 2008 8:25:35 AM
Jordan -
You're probably right about the Gettysburg Address -I do remember seeing one or two disparaging contemporary reviews, but I don't remember the source. About Lincoln himself, there is no question that he was despised while president, both by Southerners and "establishment" Northerners - and if he had survived into the Reconstruction years, he possibly may have been impeached, rather than Andrew Johnson. (And yes, he won two elections, but so did your friend George W. Bush, and he ain't so popular these days.) BTW, all of the above doesn't take away one iota from Lincoln's greatness, and he's my favorite President, too. Which was kinda the point I was making. Sometimes, a person's (or a speech's) contemporaries are not the best judge of their ultimate place in history.
Posted by: psachya | Sep 8, 2008 1:27:04 PM
David,
Had you posted the Palin speech in a vacuum, or had posted all the other speeches given at the nominating conventions, I would find your claim of not expressing any feelings at all more believable, especially since as a rule you do not post that much about American politics.
But posting the speech as you did, in the context of your normal blog workings, implied at the least that you felt the speech was worthy of attention. Which is fine. Even if my understanding is wrong, which frankly strains credulity, my interpretation is reasonable, and perhaps under the circumstances the effect of your posting the speech was not what you intended.
More to the point, my harshest words were for the speech itself, not anything you had said. If Sarah Palin does not like my opinion of her, she and I will get past it, undoubtedly. The second sentence was conditional, and your head needs to be examined only if you thought it was a good speech. I am not engaging in semantics, by the way. So no, I won't own what you want me to own. I wont even rent it.
Posted by: jordan Hirsch | Sep 9, 2008 12:13:29 AM
I have plenty of reasons to question her judgment.
Palin now attends the Wasilla Bible Church. She was there on August 17, just days before entering the national spotlight. David Brickner, the founder of Jews for Jesus, was a speaker. He told congregants that terrorist attacks on Israel were God's "judgment" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity. Brickner said, "Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. When a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment -- you can't miss it."
The McCain campaign says his comments do not reflect her religious views. Palin's spokeswoman says she is pro-Israel.
Pastor Ed Kalnin, the senior pastor of Palin's former Pentecostal church, has also come under fire for his comments. In 2004, he told church members if they voted for John Kerry for president, they wouldn't get into heaven. He told them, "I question your salvation."
Assembly of God issued a statement online in response which said Kalnin was "joking" when he suggested "Kerry supporters would go to hell," and statement went on to say, "We do acknowledge in hindsight that it was careless, and we do apologize for that. This statement is not written as a defense, but as a clarification."
Posted by: Jack | Sep 9, 2008 5:28:38 AM
You asked in this article, "why is the public resorting to ugly politicking?"
Because competing on a truthful basis, one that does not camouflage their views, puts the Democrats at a disadvantage.
Posted by: Bob Miller | Sep 9, 2008 9:53:29 PM
Jack, Palin has said she disagrees with the speaker from Js for J. Obama said he disagreed with his Pastor. I trust that both of them are being sincere. Pretty much every single religious person I know disagrees with/doesn't understand at least some of the views of their religious leader(s). I know people who attend church who are technically not even Christian their views differ so radically from basic Christian beliefs. I also know people who attend synagogue who I could describe in the same way. I'm not saying they shouldn't go. I'm just saying that each person has their own unique reasons for attending and their own unique blend of beliefs. You strike me as a person who marches to his own drummer too. Which I like.
Alice
Posted by: Alice | Sep 10, 2008 4:46:58 PM
Jack, Palin has said she disagrees with the speaker from Js for J.
Actually, she has not said this at all. Only a "spokesman" for the McCain/Palin campaign said this. She has NOT said word one about it.
It is reasonable to assume that she does, indeed, support the "Jews for Jesus" views due to the fact that her branch of religion supports conversionary tactics of Jews to the tune of millions of $$$/year. This is no secret. Call the J for J's and they will openly tell you their primary source of funding comes from the Assemblies of God, the Southern Baptists and the Pentecostal chruches. This means that the $$$ Sarah Palin tithes at church goes, in part, to fund Jews for Jesus proselytizing efforts.
In fact, this was not the 1st time David Brickner spoke at her church. Further, on 8/17 after David Brickner spoke at her church, a collection was taken up for the purpose of bringing Jews to Jesus.
Sarah Palin needs to stand up and say that she did not put $$$ in as the plate was passed.
I am an independent who leans right and McCain has completely lost my vote by his horrific choice for VP.
The above is just one of MANY reasons while I will never support this woman or that ticket - and I had planned to vote for him. But no way. Not now!
Also, she stood up on that podium at the RNC and patently lied. She did not say "no thanks" to the "Bridge to Nowhere" (as she claimed) util after she had taken $223 million in federal funds and used them for local projects.
There is also a bi-partisan ethics investigation into her administration.
And experience? As head of the Alaska National Guard she has NEVER ONCE issued a single command.
If McCain was trying to appeal to the independents, then he should have picked Lieberman. Or countless others who have more experience with the economy and leading. She is a train wreck and I will have no part of that ticket.
Posted by: Stacey | Sep 10, 2008 6:13:28 PM
Alice,
I don't have one issue with Palin, I have about a dozen. Let's pretend that Palin doesn't approve of Brickner and that she denounced him.
It doesn't negate her complete and utter lack of experience in foreign policy and economics. That alone is enough to kill my interest, but in conjunction with everything else, oy.
The more I read and learn about her the less I like. I am tired of divisiveness. I am tired of fingerpointing. All I see from her is a woman who excels at pissing people off, with little to show for it.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 10, 2008 9:54:06 PM
OK, I have to step in here. Jack, every single objection you've voiced about Palin is applicable to Obama. The difference is he's the Presidential candidate and she's the VP slot. I'll take a VP who is wet behind the ears before a president.
Posted by: treppenwitz | Sep 10, 2008 10:32:22 PM
If someone doesn't want to vote for her, I could really care less. Make yourself happy. I'm not crazy about her.
As I said, every person has their own unique blend of religious views. Are we going to ask every politician to take a survey? I don't buy that because a person attends a specific house of worship, even identifies as a certain denomination, that they actually agree with the dogma of that religion. As I said, I know too many people who go to Catholic church who are barely Catholic- and that's being generous.
Pretty much every enthusiastic Christian I know - and absolutely their pastors or whatever they have- think everyone would be better off, spiritually speaking, agreeing with them. Does that mean I'm not going to vote for them because they are Christian and I'm not? And because I find proselytizing offensive? It would become impossible to vote.
Posted by: Alice | Sep 11, 2008 12:22:40 AM
OK, I have to step in here. Jack, every single objection you've voiced about Palin is applicable to Obama. The difference is he's the Presidential candidate and she's the VP slot. I'll take a VP who is wet behind the ears before a president.
David,
I have never disputed that. McCain has been my preference. However, he is 72. It would be irresponsible of me not to spend time vetting the VP candidate.
And the more I do, the more reasons I find to question her inclusion on the ticket. I understand that sometimes we have to make compromises, but some compromises are deal breakers.
Are there serious issues with Obama? Yes, but they are of a different nature. I don't care that Palin is a hunter. Don't care if she likes to fish and shoot.
I do care that her religious views seem to take on a greater role than I want in a leader. I do care that from an educational background she is seriously lacking. Obama's background trumps hers.
There is enough evidence out there to make a case for her being a small town, provincial minded politician who bases hiring/firing based upon loyalty and not who is best for the job.
If McCain was 10 years younger it would be an entirely different story.
Posted by: Jack | Sep 11, 2008 4:55:20 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.