Smearing Palin’s Faith (Update)
John on September 12, 2008 at 9:49 am
Update: Hot Air has a pretty effective ad responding to some of what I discussed below:
Not familiar with the group that made it but I think the sentiment is right.
[End Update]
I’ve seen it coming for more than a week. The media were going to attack Palin for her faith and try to paint her as some sort of nut. It started, not surprisingly, with Daily Kos which had a diary titled Sarah Palin: Dominionist Stalking Horse back on August 29th. This post was one of the first to trot out the smear that Palin would be demanding “creationism” be taught in schools, based on some fragmentary quotes. It aslo points out that her church (shocker!) is explicitly pro-life.
From there the idea spread that Palin was an extremist. That was reinforced by two things. First, a videotape of Palin praying at her church. More on that in a moment. Second, a list of meant-to-be-funny quotes which a liberal talk radio host had created to satirize her supposed views got taken seriously. One of the made up quotes read:
God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats.
The quotes are broad enough that most people would probably suspect the joke. But at least two liberal celebrities have come out treating this as genuine. Matt Damon demanded to know if she really believed dinosaurs lived a few thousand years ago. Even more embarassing, liberal columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a column which seemed to reference the same invented quote.
If there are any genuine quotes about this topic from Palin, I haven’t seen them. She did say once that she was for “debating both sides” of the evolution issue. Much has been made of that. But as Factcheck.org noted, she never pushed for intelligent design or young-earth creationism in Alaska’s schools and in fact said that it wouldn’t be part of the curriculum.
The other, more serious attack had to do with a prayer she offered at her church. She said:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
This is clearly an exhortation to pray for our country and our leaders, that they would have wisdom as they send troops out. However, with the removal of a few words, the AP managed to turn this into the claim that Palin was advocating Holy war:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told ministry students at her former church that the United States sent troops to fight in the Iraq war on a “task that is from God.”…
“Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” she said. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God’s plan.”
And last night, ABC raised the issue in Palin’s first interview. Charlie Gibson seems to have relied on the condensed, AP version of her quote:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
But of course those weren’t her exact words. ABC has perpetuated a lie that paints Palin unfairly. Her response makes perfect sense once you know what Gibson left out:
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
This is by far the most serious attack on her faith and also the most unfair. There have been other less heralded ones as well. Yesterday a professor of theology from Chicago wrote a piece saying:
“Wives be subject to your husbands, as unto the Lord.” So says the Christian scriptures in Ephesians, 5:22. What I would like to know, first of all, is who is going to have the final authority as Vice-President if Sarah Palin is elected, Palin or her husband? In fact, I think the first order of business with Palin is to ask her to give the same kind of speech that was demanded of John F. Kennedy re his Catholicism. Kennedy said he would obey the Constitution over the Pope. Will Palin obey the Constitution over her husband?
The author of this hit piece then goes on to rehearse the same smear that Charlie Gibson fell for using the same condensed version of her quote. She then drags out another debunked claim, that Palin was against sex education in schools. In fact she supports sex-ed in schools.
No doubt there is a viceral reaction by many on the left to faith, especially when it intersects with politics. So there’s no doubt that part of what’s happening is intentional and designed to paint Palin as outside the mainstream (and therefore unelectable).
In the case of the AP, I suspect this is simply so far from the experience of their reporters and staff that they couldn’t see the difference between an exhortation to prayer and a call to holy war. In other words, I don’t think they were malicious, just ignorant. That doesn’t excuse it of course. Charlie Gibson, for one, owes Palin and his viewers and explanation and an apology.
C.S. Lewis once said (paraphrasing) that people are most afraid of that which they are least likely to become. For all the hysteria on the left over “dominionists” what’s clear is that we’ve never seen as much open hostility to religion as we have in this election. That includes the treatment of Palin, of Huckabee, of Mitt Romney and even Obama himself. Far from becoming a theocracy, our media elite seemed determined to weed out any but the most bland expressions of conventional faith from seeking public office.
Category: Politics, Religion & Faith |
John – here’s something that even moves a cynic like me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
September 12, 2008 @ 11:44 amRick, you’re a nationalist stooge!
Just kidding. It’s nice to know you can be moved a bit too.
September 12, 2008 @ 2:41 pmI was going to say . . . Rick, from recent comments, it seems like there a chance you might actually be moved enough to vote this election!
September 12, 2008 @ 4:37 pm“Rick, from recent comments, it seems like there a chance you might actually be moved enough to vote this election!”
The last time I voted was in 2000 and my partner talked me into it. I voted for Bush. Since then I remain unregistered. I could never vote for someone who was pro-choice, and I consider voting bailing out the Titanic with a thimble.
Just for the record, I admire anyone who places his life at risk for something he believes in. I admire the men and women in the military.
September 12, 2008 @ 5:33 pmAnd I admire a community organizer who tells me to put air in my tires!
September 12, 2008 @ 7:13 pmCall me a single-issue voter (I’m not — I could never vote for a liberal even if he were pro-life), but the thought of getting Obama into office and instantly reversing 100% of the pro-life gains made since Roe would absolutely crush me. Obama has said the first thing he’ll do in office is sign FOCA. I am tearing up just thinking about it. I can’t imagine NOT voting. Ever since I cast my first ballot (for Ronald Reagan), I’ve never missed an election, no matter how small.
September 12, 2008 @ 7:38 pmPro-life gains?
It is astounding to me that McCain admits he doesn’t use a computer and cannot send an e-mail. This represents either an inability to move with the times, or an unwillingness to accommodate anything new due to an entrenched technological hubris.
I run a small business which demands a comuter. I cannot imagine a president without even the most basic of computer skills.
September 13, 2008 @ 2:41 amRick,
Sorry, man, but you have it so wrong on that one. McCain is not a technological luddite, nor is he stuck in a pre-1980’s mentality (as I heard one person say this afternoon).
McCain doesn’t “do email” or spend time working a computer because he can’t. His time as a prisoner sealed his technological fate a few decades before email and the internet became the two most popular interpersonal tools on the planet. In fact, he can’t do a lot of things thanks to his captors: type, brush his hair, throw a baseball, etc.
September 13, 2008 @ 8:53 amHot Air did a great piece on this whole issue. Too bad the Obama people didn’t do some better research. I think their most recent ad mocking McCain’s lack of email experience might be just one more thing that comes back to bite them on their campaign backside.
McCain could whine all day about the numerous physical limitations he endures, but he’s a tough guy and doesn’t complain. Our Messiah, on the other hand, had a chance to visit our wounded soldiers on his recent trip to Iraq, but chose instead to play basketball. Maybe he also had to spend time catching up on his emails! The Obama campaign will continue to deliver as many cheap shots as they can. They can rely on the fact that none of these will be exposed by a MSM that desperately want to see him elected.
One side note on media bias. Yesterday the press reported Obamam to be ahead in Ohio. Seven different polling groups reported their results. Six of the seven had McCain in the lead, yet the MSM chose to report on the one that had our Messiah ahead. The MSM is scared stiff. Palin has rejuvenated the GOP and the MSM doesn’t know how to handle it. It’s fun to watch them squirm.
September 13, 2008 @ 10:00 am“The Obama campaign will continue to deliver as many cheap shots as they can.”
Like making an ad suggesting Obama wanted to hace complete sexual education to kindergarteners when all he wanted was to help them identify molesting advances. Even when confronted with the falsehood McCain stood by the ad. The Paris Hilton ad was also off message and a personal attack.
McCain, according to fact check, is leading in misleading and completely false ads. It is disappointing in light of his pre-campaign pledge to not be negative. Either he was lying or he has succombed to political advise from unscrupulous “Mark Penn” types.
September 13, 2008 @ 10:20 amIdentifying molestors wasn’t the only thing being taught to the five-year olds. There was some good old-fashioned sex ed thrown in as well. Somewhere on this blog, John has what was actually taught.
September 13, 2008 @ 10:24 amObama has not resorted to the Keating Five scandal or the cover up and non-prosecution of Cindy McCain’s massive drug addiction and illegal (limbaugh) prescription operation. McCain has also claimed Obama would raise taxes to the middle class which Fact Check said was just an outright lie since Obama’s plan calls for more of a middle class tax break than McCain’s (Bush’s)
September 13, 2008 @ 10:28 amObama would rescind the Bush tax cuts. By doing that, everyones taxes go up. The Keating Five is old news. Not even the MSM are whipping that dog. Cindy McCain a drug addict? LOL. Is she running for president?
September 13, 2008 @ 11:01 amFor the record, Cindy’s struggles with prescription meds is a twenty-year old story. During that time period, Obama was using drugs as well.
September 13, 2008 @ 11:08 amPro-lifers have made some mild inroads into the abortion industry. For example, see the new law in South Dakota which requires abortionists to tell their patients that they are taking a human life. Look at requirements in various states for parental notification. How about the ban on partial birth abortions? They’re not complete victories, for sure, but they’re inroads.
As to the whole sex ed thing, don’t buy Obama’s backpedaling on this one. Read the actual bill he voted for. The whole thing about pedophiles is an attempt to falsely characterize what the actual vote was about. The kindergarten curriculum included information about masturbation, physical reactions to arousal, etc. For 5 and 6 year olds.
September 13, 2008 @ 12:37 pmObama would only recind the Bush tax cuts for people making over 250,000 and give their cuts to the middle class.
September 13, 2008 @ 3:14 pmKarl Marx would love that Rick.
September 13, 2008 @ 5:10 pmBy the way, his increased taxation on corporations, who would pass this increase cost onto their customers in the form of higher prices, would wipe out any tax cuts he would give. I’d bet the average American woud have less in their pockets because of his tax policies.
Let’s also not forget the last time a Democrat promised us a middle class tax cut (Clinton, 1992). I’m still waiting for it. And keep in mind that Obama’s character makes it suspect that he would ever folllow through on a middle class tax cut – the guy will say anything to get elected.
September 13, 2008 @ 5:17 pmBy the way, his increased taxation on corporations, who would pass this increase cost onto their customers in the form of higher prices, would wipe out any tax cuts he would give. I’d bet the average American woud have less in their pockets because of his tax policies.
September 14, 2008 @ 5:40 amIt is time we get loosed from the choke hold of corperations who use overseas work and use their tax braeks to give 100 milion dollar CEO pensions. Taxing them fairly will give rise to other companies with our best interests at heart.
September 14, 2008 @ 9:44 amWrong again Rick. When Bush cut taxes revenues rose in the Treasury 20% higher than Clinton’s best year in office. Clinton raised taxes, Bush cut taxes = we received more tax revenue from the Bush tax cuts. It was his spending that killed him although we had to rebuild our military after Clinton decimated it.
Raise taxes on corporations (I’m part of one) and we’ll just pass this additional cost onto the consumer. Like it or not, it’s a fact of life. A few CEO’s getting huge salaries isn’t the norm – you’re making a sweeping generalization that would make Obama proud.
September 14, 2008 @ 12:38 pm