Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled with Palin

Many conservative pundits were not impressed by John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, since her glaring lack of experience undercuts McCain's main message against Barack Obama.

On the plus side for McCain, just about everyone agreed that putting an anti-abortion mother-of-five on the ticket would delight the evangelical Christians who were so crucial to George Bush's re-election.

Although the "pro-family" interest groups applauded McCain's choice, I had a hunch that Palin wouldn't be unanimously embraced by the evangelical rank and file.

I lurk and occasionally comment at a few "mommy blogs" written by religious conservatives. Checking in on some popular sites in the evangelical Christian blogosphere over the weekend, I did find some commentaries that praised Palin for her views and for continuing a pregnancy while carrying a child with Down syndrome.

However, if you join me after the jump, you'll see that plenty of evangelicals are far from "fired up and ready to go" for this Republican ticket.

Christian conservative bloggers were not united behind any presidential candidate during the primaries, but many favored Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul. Sam Brownback was distrusted for having converted to Catholicism as an adult. John McCain was never a favorite in these circles, although he was not as detested as Mitt Romney.

Whatever their political differences, evangelical Christian bloggers share a general philosophy about a woman's proper role in the family and society. As the recommended reading list of the Biblical Womanhood site suggests, they are not big on moms of young kids working outside the home. Ladies Against Feminism is frequently found on Christian blogrolls, and that blog is adamant about God wanting women to focus on home and family.

This post by the talented preacher Voddie Baucham sums up the case against Palin from the Christian right:

Unfortunately, Christians appear to be headed toward a hairpin turn at breakneck speed without the slightest clue as to the danger ahead.  I don't see this as a pro-family pick at all!  Moreover, I believe the conservative fervor over this pick shows how politicized Christians have become at the expense of maintaining a prophetic voice.  I believe that Mr. McCain has proven with his VP pick that he is pro-victory, not pro-family.  In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick.  I say that for at least two reasons.  [...]

Perhaps the most disturbing revelation in the article is Mrs. Palin's recent decision to travel for work (against her doctor's orders) in the final days of her pregnancy.  [...]

She put her child at risk, not for an official, necessary, or emergency duty as the Governor of Alaska, but because she simply "was not going to miss out on that speech." A speech!  The more I learn about the choices this woman has made, the less inclined I am to see Mr. McCain's choice as pro-family. [...]

Not only do I believe that a pro-family candidate would prefer to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her children, I believe a pro-family candidate would also avoid validating and advancing our culture's desire to completely erase gender roles. [...]

In an effort to win the pro-family political argument, we are sacrificing the pro-family biblical argument.  In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, "It's ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don't have an abortion." How pro-family is that?

This post by an at-home mom has dozens of supportive comments below it:

The home, the family, the raising of children--it is the zenith of human accomplishment. It's a full-time job, requiring full-time attention if it's to encompass all God intended. [...]

The message is "women can have it all"...and it is a lie, because they can't.

The message is "men and women should have equal access to the same roles". The reality is, that's not how God created HIS universe to run. He created them male and female, and yes, by their very biological design, nature screams at our dull senses "YOU ARE DIFFERENT"! Created for different purposes, created to compliment one another in their life work.

Doug Phillips, the president of Vision Forum Ministries, was annoyed that Palin"praised and thanked feminist role models Clinton and Ferraro for what they had accomplished for women’s rights" in Dayton. He unloaded on Republican priorities in this post:

The selection of a feminist, pro-life mother of five with four children, seventeen and under, including a newborn Down's syndrome baby, to fulfill the post of vice president is without precedent in American history. What Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro was unable to accomplish for the feminist cause in 1984 may now be handed as a fait accompli to America through the hands of evangelicals and conservatives. After decades of Christian leaders fighting against the feminstic vision of the working supermom, Republicans are now showcasing the vision in the most high profile election in the world.

[...] I am confident that Mrs. Palin is a delightful, sincere, thoughtful, and capable woman with many commendable virtues. But in fairness, there is nothing "traditional" about mothers of young children becoming career moms, chief magistrates, and leading nations of three hundred million, nor is this pattern the biblical ideal to which young women should aspire. At a time when motherhood and marriage is so under attack, the message Republicans are sending is this: Winning political elections is more important than the following proposition given by the Lord: "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed" (Titus 2:4-5).

Bonus track: Phillips linked approvingly to this 2004 post by an ordained minister who argued,

So then, if we are to be faithful to Christ, we must search the Scriptures to see what the Lord says in regards to the issue of women civil rulers, and whether it is permissible for Christians to support a woman for the office of civil magistrate. Second, we should recognize that the issue here is not the character or ability of the woman seeking the office; nor is it her spiritual condition, her views on the issues, or even if she is the "best" available candidate. The point in question is this: does the Word of God give us the liberty to place a woman into a political office where she will in some sense bear rule over us in the civil sphere? Or, to state it more precisely: is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus rule over men? Has God ordained women to be civil leaders, or has He reserved this authority for men only? I believe that the Bible gives a definitive answer to this question: women are not permitted by God to hold political office and rule over men in the political sphere. There are four lines of evidence in the Bible that establish that women are not to hold political office.

The title of this post by "Mrs. Chancey" is "Woe to My people":

Why is a wife and mother with five children (including a newborn with Down's syndrome) running for vice president? She has a bountiful amount of work cut out for her by the Lord sitting in her lap and around her dining room table. I can certainly respect her Christian and biblical views, but I am really amazed at Christians leaping to embrace putting a wife and mother into political office--particularly an office that will essentially make her the helpmate of the highest official in the land and practically remove her from her husband and children.

Isaiah 3:12 truly applies: "As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O My people! Those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths." I can assent to Sarah Palin's conservative views and even applaud them, but I mourn for a nation whose men have forgotten how to lead their families and their land in the way our Founders envisioned and the way God intended. A wife and mother has already been elected by God to the highest office in the land. She has her own particular husband to help, his calling to make successful, and her children to nurture and train to the glory of God. How could the vice-presidency possibly compare with a task that God has personally designed her to fill?

This Ron Paul supporter said Palin seemed like a pretty good governor who is worth listening to, but she had some concerns:

can she REALLY put her husband and children first if she has the second highest office in the country? Especially if things go wrong, which they very, very likely will? Can she be there for her husband if she's a very busy working mother? Can she fulfill her duties as a wife if she's traveling abroad and attending congressional sessions and casting deciding votes? Can she drop everything and handle a crisis with one of her children? Pro-family doesn't mean you're pro-HAVING a family, or pro-LOOKING like a family, or pro-God's designation of a family (which she is--one man, one woman, for life, etc). Pro-family means family comes FIRST, and each spouse puts that responsibility FIRST. [...]

I am not arguing that large numbers of conservative Christians will refuse to vote for the Republican ticket because they disapprove of Palin. But we should be aware that this pick was controversial within the evangelical Christian community as well as among other segments of the Republican base.

Even with Palin at his side, I do not think McCain will inspire as large an army of volunteer Christian soldiers as Bush did four years ago.

Tags: 2008 elections, Evangelical christians, John McCain, president, religious right, Sarah Palin (all tags)

Comments

50 Comments

Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled

Of course they are not going to be completely fired up.  If they are that conservative in their beliefs, they are going to absolutely beleive that this woman should be at home caring for that infant child.   It is one thing to be governor of a small state.   She has plenty of time to still care for that child.  But the VP requires so much time, how can she properly care for him.

Look, she might help McCain shore up some evangelical credentials, but at the same time, he is also up for a backlash for people who think that Gov. Palin needs to be spending more time with her young children.

by gavoter 2008-08-31 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled

They could well think that, but I wouldn't be surprised if the VP has more leisure time than the Alaskan governor, particularly as McCain said long ago that he felt the VP's only job was to check his health once in the morning.

And preside over the Senate.  Considering that the Senate only works 3 or 4 day weeks, it should be quite restful for her.

by LIsoundview 2008-08-31 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled
The Alaskan legislature only meets two times a year, quite a different realm than the office of VP.
People thought GWB had executive experience as a two term governor of Texas (population 25 million), but that legislature only serves about 150 days out of the year (which also explains Bush's affection for taking so many days of vacation).
In the last 19 months she's served as governor, she's only passed two pieces of legislation.
by skohayes 2008-08-31 06:39AM | 0 recs
We shouldn't kid ourselves....

Palin is the dream choice for hardcore anti-choice wingnuts who might have otherwise sat out this election cycle:

Palin's a heroine to the Cultural Right for one simple reason: she recently carried a pregnancy to term despite knowing that the child would likely suffer from Down's Syndrome. In combination with her unambivalent anti-choice (and anti-gay-marriage) views, this makes her the ideal female candidate for the Christian Right (her own religious views are a bit hazy; she's usually described as a "non-denominational Protestant").

Economic conservatives like her too, partly because of her advocacy for oil drilling everywhere, especially in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and partly because she's the bitter enemy of an Alaska GOP establishment long considered (strange as it may seem) dangerously liberal by most conservatives.

And that gets to the other central advantage she offers McCain: already, on Fox News, the spinners are endlessly talking about her as an "above party" reformer. Never mind that she represents the central thrust of an attempted hard-right takeover of the Alaska GOP: all that matters is that she's criticized other Republicans. (She's also gone after oil companies, even as she supports policies that would increase their already-bloated profits--much like McCain).

http://thedemocraticstrategist.org/

by cChalfonte 2008-08-31 09:33AM | 0 recs
The problem is

that many of the truly hard-core actually did have problem's with Obama's experience and have more problems with Palin's.

The conservatives that were just using experience as a political issue WILL like Palin, I agree. But it's unclear what percentage of the base that is.

by Neef 2008-08-31 09:42AM | 0 recs
I think my problem is with your mixing up

the terms "conservative"....and Christian Right and/or evangelical.  Pat Buchanan is not an evangelical.

There is a rabidly anti-choice group out there. This group has all along been uneasy with McCain due to his stance on stem-cell research.  For this group, Sara Palin is the perfect candidate.

Ideological conservatives like Bill Kristol will, of course be concerned with her obvious lack of experience and readiness for the office.  Nevertheless, Republicans like Kristol have Party discipline.  They will support the McCain ticket regardless of his VP choice.

The rabid anti-choice crowd may well have sat out this election were it not for a veep choice like Palin.

by cChalfonte 2008-08-31 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I think my problem is with your mixing up

I know a lot of rabid pro-lifers (my parents, most of my friends growing up) and there's no way they were going to sit out the vote, even with McCain's less-than-dogmatic views on abortion.

What they might not have done is canvassing, campaigning, donating (although the window for that is nearly at a close), advertising, etc. That's the part that has an unknown influence on the next couple months.

by indythink 2008-08-31 01:33PM | 0 recs
Sarah the Neutralizer

It's great fun to see the Dem's stutter and stumble in responding to the Palin pick. She has pluses and minus's but the real import of the selection is what I call the "Sarah the Game Change Neutralizer"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/080 8/13016.html

by oliver777 2008-08-31 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

I don't see any stuttering here by dems.   This pick as a VP might get some of the bible thumpers up and out to vote on election day but then again they are still going to have to pull that lever for John McCain.   There was about 2,392 people McCain could have chosen above her that could have accomplished the same thing ... without  throwing one of his main drawing points out of play ... experience and qualifications!   But then again, maybe none of them wanted the job and he had no choice but to go to the one with no experience.

A lot has been said about this pick and McCain's inability to understand just how inportant a VP pick is (especially to the oldest candidate in history) but it appears to me more like McCain and his staff can see the writing on the wall concerning their chances in November.   I don't see Obama losing any of the Kerry states, I don't see McCain winning any of the Kerry states.  I do see an excellent chance for Obama to take NM, Colorado, Nevada ...

Palin doesn't help McCain in November, the only thing that could help McCain is the Bradley effect.

by Monkei 2008-08-31 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer
I live in Wyoming and you could not be more wrong about Palin's impact on the ticket and in particular the western states.
Sarah Palin is a western woman. Born in Idaho and raised in Alaska. Hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, libertarian, Mom, pro-life, pro-drilling, anti-corruption, and it goes on and on.
Her selection is off the charts popular in rural Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico (and you can kiss thoughts of Montana good-bye).  
This selection secures the west for McCain and there's not a darn thing Obama can do about it.
by oliver777 2008-08-31 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

Don't assume that the rest of the west is the same as Wyoming.  Wyoming still likes Dick Cheney, for God's sake!

by beerwulf 2008-08-31 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

So does Oliver, I'm sure.

by vcalzone 2008-08-31 07:49AM | 0 recs
by oliver777 2008-08-31 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: No Bounce Obama

Funny: that link actually shows the opposite of what you said it would.

by Jess81 2008-08-31 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: No Bounce Obama

It's Obama. If he's up in the polls by six, he should be up by 12. Only leading by six shows that he's going to lose. Duh.

by johnny longtorso 2008-08-31 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona all have LARGE latino populations which will neutralize the evangelical vote. They also all have DEMOCRATIC Governors.

Nice try.

by venician 2008-08-31 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

ROFL Oh puhleeze.  The instant polls show that to not even be close to the truth.  You just said essentially what McCain said, "she hunts so those dumb yokels in Montana who hunt will vote for her."  You just called the West stupid.  They are not.  Dream on.  It will be a LANDSLIDE of enormous proportions and there is not a damn thing MCCain can do about it.

by scytherius 2008-08-31 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

This "dem" (term denotes the author is a freeper, BTW...might as well use the term demorats, IMO) LOVES the choice.  

Let me reiterate.  I LOVE the choice of Palin for VP.  It bodes well for a democratic win in November.

by lojasmo 2008-08-31 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

If you really love Palin that much and McCain that much, go over to RedState or NRO and hang out with your cohorts.

It is completely disingenous and doswnright deceitful to compare the experience of Palin to Obama.    You can find many honest and thoughtful concervatives who gladly admit that Obama is much more experienced and capable than Palin.

If you want to be part of the McCain Right wing Christianist movement, that is your call, but this is not the right place for you to be pushing your movement politics.

Heck, go join TALKLEFT, they would be happy to have you.

by gavoter 2008-08-31 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

So that would be the reason you feel compelled to post the same item in so many places.

Obama spoke a record audience, outdrawing the Olympics on their biggest right.

But you're right to some extent. I thought McCain would select one of the seven dwarfs. Instead we get. Instead he reached down into the ranks of the the most socialist state in this great country. Alaska which takes most of its economy from the great states that make this country an economic powerhouse, hobbled as it is by the reactionary republicans

Self-reliant Alaska? If it weren't for selling our oil, to foreign countries too often, people in Alaska might have to join the rest of us in paying state taxes. Instead Mis Sarah comes begging for her federal dole that makes up 40 percent of Alaska economy.

We buid their roads, keep their railroad (given by us) from going bankrupt and there are all these programs that require community matches. Except in Alaska, that's usually a federal grant used to match another grant.

What does Alaska have to say, other than sending us the most corruption congressional delegation?

The Alaska State government itself has in an audit said the most programs in Alaska are funded almost entirely on how much money they can get for Uncle Sam. That reaches to the point that  a bridge that should cost $50,000 ends up costs $10 million, one the Alaskan state of graft and payoffs is done with it.

by bamjack 2008-08-31 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Sarah the Neutralizer

Well, stuttering maybe a little.  We are astonished that McCain really just handed us the election and a filibuster proof Senate.  We just didn't think he was quite THAT stupid.  Guess we were wrong.

by scytherius 2008-08-31 10:16AM | 0 recs
Well, she may
"electrify the Bush base"....
but she does not peel even one vote from Obama.  That's the good news.  Bottom line, she's a desperate choice and that's a good thing for our side:))
by cChalfonte 2008-08-31 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled

Given that the religious right doesn't particularly like here. she needs to be kept on the defensive about what she doesn't know.

Jerry Ford's moment on whether Poland was in the Soviet sphere was one of the foreign affairs gaffs that helped to sink him against Jimmy Carter. He had made the mistake of trusting Henry Kissinger -- and not staying plugged into the loop enough to explain what his administration had done.

There's no certainty that a question will be tossed at her that will expose the depth of the air between her ears.

It's a disgrace that McCain treated seriuos women in such a cavalier way. It sounds way too much like another version of the classic McCain boozing and womanizing; tossing out the woman and the empty bottle at the end of the day.

We underestimate the level of expertise and gravitas that attaches to someone who wonks himself (herself) out to prepare for a run at the White House. Either Hillary or Obama would have been fine with foreign affairs.

Condi Rice didn't know what to do with all of her academic credentials and political experience. She's been a dismal failure as both an NSC advisor and Secretary of State.

Character is in many ways at the bottom of this. It's shows a lack of character to select someone like this -- and a lack of character for her to jump at a job without ever having worked a day to get the job.

This is like hiring a kindergarten teacher to do brain surgery because she's got a nice smile.  

by bamjack 2008-08-31 06:30AM | 0 recs
Maybe a Wingnut can explain

How in 2000 and especially 2004 the GOP told soccer mom's out there that the world was a scary place, terrorists were behind every corner, and that you need the experience that Bush/and what's his name gives you to keep you safe ... and now turn around 4 short years later to evidently tell you that it's no longer an issue with their pick as VP who has zero, nadda, no foreign experience at all.   But then again, as Fox news says, hey Alaska is right up there next to Russia.    

Soccer mom's the world is no longer a scary place anymore.

by Monkei 2008-08-31 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Wait till America really see's the tickets.

McCain blew it with this pick and the visual says it all.  Just look at both of them next to each other out there on the stump, it looks so weird.  She looks like secretary or even maybe a librarian.  She is no Snow, Collins, or Hutchinson.  This was such a stupid pick guys.  Let's be honest say you didn't really know anything about politics and somebody told you to sit down and watch the tv.  Then all of a sudden Obama and Biden walked out and were introduced as the democratic ticket.  Then McCain and Palin walked out and were introduced as the GOP ticket.  Most people would be scratching their heads over the simple appearance of the GOP ticket.  You have a 72 year old and a 44 year old woman that looks like  your local elementary teacher.  People are going to wonder, "ok, so she's going to be replacing Cheeney?"  She's going to be traveling to Saudi Arabia and other regions to debate American foreign policy.  Please... There is no question here who's ticket looks more stable and realistic.  God forbid McCain suffers a heart attack and dies.  Do you think most Americans  and men in the military could see her as a commander and chief??  Um... nah... You see HRC was different. She had the name, Clinton, the experience, the swagger, the commanding and serious appearance and the intellect.  This pick is completely koko.  Most common sense thinking people are going to agree.  

by nzubechukwu 2008-08-31 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Wait till America really see's the tickets.

Here's an easier way to put it:

Take Obama and McCain out of the equation (that's the premise behind "ready to lead" in terms of the vice-presidency right). Obama or McCain are no longer able to perform their duties. Amadinajhad(?) is still working towards nuclear power, hell, worse case scenario, Russian decides to invade the rest of the former USSR states and begin an all out war in Eastern Europe. A call is made for some form of US assisstance, who do you think is better equipped to handle that call or putting it another way, for whom would you feel more comfortable answering that call? Joe Biden or Sarah Palin? No rationalizations, no explaining, just gut reaction!

by lamh3176 2008-08-31 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Wait till America really see's the tickets.

Cosign!

by nzubechukwu 2008-08-31 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Wait till America really see's the tickets.

Biden, hands down.  He's a pragmatist instead of an ideologue, he's been around the block enough times to know what's possible and he doesn't have the lust for righteousness combined with whoring for big business that Palin seems to show.

by beerwulf 2008-08-31 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Wait till America really see's the tickets.

Exactly!  i live in SoCal and was listening to the local conservative talk radio in San Diego. It was a couple of way conservative talk show hosts going on about the pick.  The lead host was pissed.  His co-host said, "now come on, are you telling me you would rather have Biden as President instead of Palin?"  The main host said, "Are you kidding me?  in a nuclear workd with Russia and Iran and North Korea and the War on Terrorism?  ABSOLUTELY I would rather have Biden."

THe party is over Republicans and I would like to SO thank you for this pick.  Now I would have chosen Huckabee if I could have chose the worst possible for McCain.  But Palin and Jindle were certainly my number 2

by scytherius 2008-08-31 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Wait till America really see's the tickets.

Actually Huckabee would be my biggest nightmare both in a literal and a campaign sense.  The man is personally scary to me but he would MOTIVATE the christian right wing base & he is very charming; charming enough to be likeable to the low information swing voters who voted for Bush at the last minute both times.  Keep in mind the GOP does not pick candidates that would appeal to an educated, honestly mainstream middle ground type of person.  That is not how they fight this war.  They know that they have a base of easily manipulated, emotional voters that will turn out reliably for them & another base to tap into; the low information voter who is too busy & also probably too simple to grasp much more then little concepts.  In a bad economy they are generally trying to work harder to make ends meet and have less time or ability to become more informed; instead they rely on group think & the soundbite to sway them; both areas the GOP is masterful at.

So in actuality Huckabee would've been a good move on the GOP's part - b/c they don't care about our opinion; they care about the demographics I outlined about

by jrsygrl 2008-08-31 11:22AM | 0 recs
Christian Conservatives

My parents attend a very conservative Baptist church in NE Pennsylvania. I grew up in the church, and am very aware of how men and women think in that community.

Desmoinesdem's analysis is spot-on, and the quotes from the "mommy blogs" are great proof. There will be a big debate in evangelical households over which is more important: to have "one of us" in the White House, or to stand up for their principals and beliefs, which clearly states she should be at home raising her children.

I'm not endorsing this world view or values. In fact, I disagree with it vehemently. But those are the values of the community that Gov. Palin comes from, and it influences her positions.

While it may be crass, it's necessary to point out that from a policy standpoint, Sarah Palin is no more than Jerry Falwell in a dress.

by dannybauder 2008-08-31 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Christian Conservatives

I also know people who are Bush loving, conservative baptist church goers - sorry the staying at home thing won't resonate with them whatsoever.  Many of them also bottlefeed, follow Dobson and their daughters work as teachers etc. & put the kids in religious daycare.  

by jrsygrl 2008-08-31 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Christian Conservatives

And they were going to vote Republican anyway.  It's those that actually have independent thought who McCain loses a lot of with this pick.

by scytherius 2008-08-31 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Christian Conservatives

What I said in my post is that the base of evangelicals are on the whole going to vote Republican IF they vote.  The BEST we can hope to do is make Palin enough like McCain in their minds so they stay home. They from a majority perspective will NEVER EVER EVER vote Democrat - that was the point of my post.

by jrsygrl 2008-08-31 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled

I think we need to hope that the stay home; trying to pander to get them to vote for our candidate is futile - they will not vote for a Democrat period & they are sure aren't going to come out in droves to support the party.  The best we can do is remove the evangelical support from the party so they stay home.  The GOP is hoping to divide our base so we overall just stay home. If we vote for them it is gravy in their mind.

So, for example, if her 15 y/o really did get pregnant & she really did take the baby & lie to voters that might resonate BUT the DNC can't be the one to expose it.  We need to use a tabloid or some other means to investigate it ala John Edwards.  Also if you find out anything else that about her that conflicts with the values of the wingnuts that needs to come out; possibly through alternative means. At the very least it might make them stay home.

by jrsygrl 2008-08-31 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled

Very interesting, as always.  My wife says she hasn't really seen any comments like this on her "mommy blogs," but she's seen a number of comments from women who are aghast that Palin would return to work so soon after giving birth and such.  And she knows many of the women on her blogs would agree with everything written here, even if they didn't write it themselves.

At the end of the day, I think most conservative Christians will vote for "one of them" even if they might disapprove of her life choices.  But the pick seems to be a big ol' lemon with everyone else, from what I've seen.

by Steve M 2008-08-31 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Mitt

On another note, I guess we can thank the McCain campaign for handing us Nevada and possibly Colorado.  This selection was the biggest slap in the face to Mitt Romney and his Mormon religion. If Mitt was a Christian, there is NO WAY he would not have been put on the ticket.  And I know he must feel so used today.  Wow.  Thank God McCain didn't select Huckabee.  He had the most potential for the GOP.  

by nzubechukwu 2008-08-31 08:08AM | 0 recs
Keery states plus IA, NM and NV

equals 269, I think. That's without CO, VA or OH.

NV should be ripe for the taking, with a strong Libertarian contingent and a lot of angry Mormons.

by desmoinesdem 2008-08-31 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Mitt

"If Mitt was a Christian"

Uh...Mitt is a Mormon, which means he IS a Christian.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-31 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Mitt

Mormons are NOT Christians:

http://www.irr.org/MIT/is-mormonism-chri stian.html

by KoolJeffrey 2008-08-31 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Mitt

Incorrect.  Christianity is defined by a belief that Jesus Christ is one's savior.  Therefore, Mormons (who believe that Jesus is their savior) are Christians.  They also believe in Jesus' divinity, as well as the New Testament.

The IRR is a Christian group and they may not want to identify Mormons as Christian for many reasons, primarily being that it makes all Christianity look as arbitrary as Mormonism.  Objective, non-Christian sources view Mormons as Christian.  Also, while the Mormons don't explicitly state (on their website, at least) that they are a sect of Christianity, their core beliefs make it pretty clear they are: Jesus is Divine, the New Testament is correct and divinely influenced, Jesus is the only savior, etc.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-31 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Mitt

Does this mean all Christians are Jews too?

by erlin 2008-08-31 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Mitt

OK, but the point that he's trying to make is that most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christians, and are quite hostile to Mormons, and the Mormons full well know this, and are sensitive to it.

So his point remains that Mitt Romney would have not energized the religious right base, and McCain passed him over for a pick that would appeal to them, rubbing salt in that wound.

It was a real-world argument, not an academic comparative religious exercise.

by indythink 2008-08-31 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Mitt

Fair enough.  But the original poster should have said "If Mitt were an evangelical, he'd have been on the ticket," not "If Mitt were a Christian."  Also, if Mitt were a Catholic, that wouldn't have worked either.  So it's not a matter of being Christian, it's a matter of being a specific kind of Christian, and that distinction matters a lot.  We can't just pretend that Christians are all evangelicals.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-31 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Mitt

I know some Baptists who don't think Catholics are Christians.  Mormons?  Forget about it.

We all know that Mitt's real savior is Mammon, but that's not a winner with most regular folk either, so he's out of luck this time.  

by chiefscribe 2008-08-31 10:28AM | 0 recs
I am baffled why ANYONE thinks this pick helps Mcc

Who in their right mind thinks this pick helps McCain?  Wacko right wingers hate the Dems so much they would have voted for McCain anyway.  It's just that now they are happy about it.  Initial polls have women wary of her and even republican women (not the extreme ones of course) are insulted.  Hillary supporters (except the handful of PUMAS) are insulted.  Dems (yes we are energized) will be a little bit scared because we know how many dumb Conservatives are out there.  But this keeps them from sitting home and saying "Obama is going to win anyway."  McCain's only argument against Obama has been neutralized.  This gives the Dems the opening they need to discuss McCain's age by saying "Palin heartbeat away, etc."  And all except the wacko right who would have voted anyway, people are not too pleased with the thought of Ms. Palin having to negotiate with Putin over Georgia, etc.  There is nothing at all about this pick that helps McCain.  I mean he could have chose from several woman that would have gotten some conservative indie votes.  But picking Palin is the utter insult (all we gotta do is put any woman on the ticket and women will vote cause those little ladies don't think).  Pundits have gotten nothing correct this election season.  So their thoughts on this issue are meaningless.  People who really think that this choice helps McCain one iota probably also believe that Bush isn't going to the Convention because he is really concerned about the people in the path of the hurricane.  McCain's pick is about the only one he could have made (Huckabee is the other) that ensures a Dem landslide and, very likely, a 60 seat majority in the Senate not counting Lieberman.

by scytherius 2008-08-31 10:06AM | 0 recs
This is what I want to know

OK.  So she is a pro-lifer.  We all know that.  And she doesn't believe in birth control.  We all know that.  So she's 44, McCain dies in office, is she going to have kids while president?  

by scytherius 2008-08-31 10:15AM | 0 recs
McPanderer overreached

It's tougher than it looks to pander. Especially if you want to pander to evangelicals and women at the McSame time. I'm sure when he made the decision it made sense. However, the big problem is, Palin is unfit to be president. It is mind boggling that he chose this women. The people who think Palin is fit to be President were not going to vote for Obama or any Democrat anyway.

John McCain will lose because he no longer has any values.

by erlin 2008-08-31 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Women not fit to rule over men?!?!?!?!

I will vote for Obama, if only because the worldview expressed by evangelical Christians scares the crap out of me.  I literally felt my skin crawl reading those comments.  They want to drive us back to a time BEFORE the middle ages.  I need a shower after just reading that misogynistic crap.  Something has gone horribly awry in America if these people are flourishing in the 21st century.

by milton333 2008-08-31 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Not all evangelical conservatives are thrilled

Thanks for the post.

This demonstrates just how reactionary the anti-choice movement is and just what we are fighting against.

This goes a lot farther than being for or against abortion.  At the end of the day the real issue is women's rights and equality.

We believe in it.  They don't.  They believe it is God's will for women to be second class citizens (almost chattel).  This is a very dangerous world view and is hard to articulate to your moderate to conservative non-wacko friends.

Reading these quotes in their own words is a very valuable exercise.

Thanks again!

by nintendofanboy 2008-08-31 07:28PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads