Your Biblical Viewpoint
September 2, 2008
So yeah, I said I was busy. I still am, but these things keep on rolling in. Its getting obnoxious. All weekend, of course, Sarah Palin has been dogged by the “she should stay home with her kids” meme that’s been going around and around the media, finally landing at Meredith Viera’s feet this morning on the Today show (can you tell that I watch morning television when I wake up? I do that so that the spiders don’t get the idea that they can stage a revolution and overtake the linen closet while I am occupied with putting on my makeup). Its sexist, no doubt. How do you tell a woman who is as accomplished as Sarah Palin that she should forgo the chance at the Vice Presidency because her kids have a few problems? Or because it means she might be busier than she is right now without sounding like you’re straight out of a 50s sitcom? And not Donna Reed. That chick was a media powerhouse.
Well, that’s easy, apparently. According to Sally Quinn, the way around sounding sexist is to attribute the sexist ideas to the Straw Religious Conservative, because heaven knows, conservatives hate women in power.
McCain’s cynical choice has created a dilemma for many women. For still-angry Hillary Clinton voters, they will have to decide if they want to vote against their concscience and political interests by voting to elect a Republican woman who’s even more conservative than McCain.
Evangelical women also will have to decide if they will vote against their conscience by voting to put the mother of young children in a job outside the home that will demand so much of her time and energy.
Southern Baptist leaders like Richard Land and Al Mohler have praised McCain’s choice. But these are the same men who support this statement from the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message:
“A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.”
Quinn says that choosing Palin was a “calculated move,” and, duh, it was. It was calculated to fire up the base. The women are just icing on the cake. If women are stupid enough to vote along panty lines, well, then, I guess the Republican party will pick up a few votes here and there from women more concerned with gender solidarity than actual ideology, but the most inspiring part of the Palin pick is not that she’s female, but that she supports the parts of the ideological base that typically hate McCain, and who he sells down the river on a routine basis. They like Palin because she’s strong on what they need her to be strong on — and untouchable on certain womens’ issues because of her firsthand experience.
I’ve never quite figured out why, in order to be a “real” female candidate, a woman has to be a liberal. That’s what’s implied here, and in so many other places. Why not get one more qualified? Like who, pray tell? Kay Bailey Hutchison, who doesn’t share the party’s social values? Women who have been out of the spotlight, or who have years of Washington baggage? Women who have slowly veered to the left over their years in public service? Palin’s more qualified for the veep slot than most of the men I know who currently hold office. If all McCain wanted to do was appeal to leftover Hillary voters, he would have picked a warmed-over Democrat and been done with it. With Palin, he gets two for the price of one: a chick who also fits in nicely with the social conservative base necessary to put McCain over the top in November. Remember, back at the start of this, I said that the Republicans would either need to pick up the far right or pick up the squishy middle. They didn’t need both, but it would be a plus. With Palin, they got a LOT from Column A and a little from Column B.
But back to the sexism. So…Palin can’t run for veep because conservative men and women would have to cast a vote for a woman that they think is out of line with their Bibles? Since when, outside of liberal fantasies, have people who make up the majority of the voting public — and not some fringe demographic that doesn’t get out of their houses except on very important Sundays, and then only to discuss gnosticism with other people in burlap sack — judged their candidates by a standard outlined in an outdated Bible verse that is taken totally out of context. Women in Christianity are not submissive, you twerps. You’d know that if you read the rest of that passage. We see women as interdependent with and equal to men in every way, and although we do see women as uniquely qualified to head households (a plus, not an excuse to keep them chained to the sink), there’s no denying that every one of us is called to serve in a certain way. If women are called to serve in public office, that’s what they should do, and their husbands, as equal and independent partners in a Christian marriage, should do everything they can to assure that these women are pursuing what they feel to be their God-given objective.
(UPDATE: As a friend explained it, “The husband and wife can be compared to two standard characters in the Old Testament, the king and the prophet. The prophet was, as was everyone else, the subject of the king. But the prophet was the one who told the king what he should do, and when the king screwed up, the prophet let him have it. Kings who heeded prophets, like David, did pretty well. Kings who didn’t, like Saul and Ahaz, wound up dying miserable deaths.”)
The hardcore zealots — the less than one percent of the population who still can’t seem to figure girls out (and as a result often never meet nor interact with them) — might have some issues with it, but I’m not sure they’re dictating policy anywhere but in their heads.
Oddly enough, this does two things. One, it answers Sally’s question (no, Christian men and women won’t refuse to support her because she doesn’t fit into a liberal-created opinion of what conservatives think). And two, an understanding of the interdependency of the genders and how Christian marriage works gives women in Christian marriages the power and confidence to do more. Its probably faith, and not pure luck, that’s kept Sarah Palin plugging along for the last two decades. Say what you want about it, it makes things easier when you know your partner is committed to your goals as well as his. As far as I know, its carried her this far, and the office of Vice President is not without perks that probably will make the job easier than it is right now.
Sarah’s got her problems (for instance, she is, according to Andrea Mitchell — who looked like her dog had just died when Palin’s name was announced — just too darned popular), but being a mom in the West Wing is not going to be one of them.
Posted in Uncategorized
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Two points. First, if I’m understanding you correctly, you have your theology wrong. Unless something has changed, the official Catholic position is that wives are to submit to their husbands, but, as you point out, this doesn’t mean they should be chained to a sink. Women are co-equal in creation with men; it is simply the case that final authority and responsibility–there’s that servant-leadership of Christ demanded of husbands–rest with husbands.
Second, don’t you find it more than a bit ironic that the political party that prides itself on not being sexist, unlike us troglodyte conservatives (redundant, that), can’t seem to avoid blatant sexism when confronted with a genuine achiever who just happens to be a beautiful woman? I’ll be cackling about that long past November.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I’m going with the “attempting to simplify TOTB” thing. In the real world, it plays out differently. I could get into a very deep theological discussion that involves both social and spiritual aspects of the interdependency of gender and its application to the marital relationship, but that would take a long time and I have events to plan.
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
My denomination decided decades ago that women are fit for the priesthood and has been ordaining them ever since. There are still a few nutters who get their undies in a twist over this, but experience has shown that we are richly blessed by their ministry and gifts.
If I can take communion from Mother Hannah, Gov. Palin can have Dick Cheney’s job.
regards,
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“Straw Religious Conservative” - That’s brilliant, Princess. I’ve been jousting with liberals online all weekend and this is exactly what they all get around to. “Of course I wouldn’t condemn her for this, but those religious nutcakes are a different matter.” I’ve seen it dozens of times.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I am an Evangelical Christian who thinks that Palin’s decision to be a working mother or her daughter’s pregnancy is a total non-issue.
I’m not voting for McCain/Palin because of their records and because of McCain’s alliance to Bush’s failed presidency.
And this is from someone who was a very big McCain fan in 2000. Sorry.
Let me know when you start talking about any of these issues, because the motherhood issue is a non-issue:
-The push to recall Palin as mayor when she was in office,
-Her membership in an organization that wanted Alaska to secede from the US,
-The lobbying firm she hired to help her pull in $27mil in earmarks for a town of 6700
-Her stint as a Director of Ted Steven’s 527 group
-Her acceptance of at least $4,500 in campaign contributions in the same fundraising scheme at the center of a public corruption scandal that led to the indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens,
-and the following quotes from Republicans related to her:
John Harris, the speaker of the House (in Alaska), when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: “She’s old enough. She’s a U.S. citizen.”
Republican and Alaska State Senate President Lyda Green, “She’s not prepared to be Governor. How can she be prepared to be Vice President or President?”
Sarah’s mother-in-law, Faye Palin “I’m not sure what she brings to the ticket other than she’s a woman and a conservative. Well, she’s a better speaker than McCain.”
Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities.
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
1. It failed. It was a town of 6,700.
2. She wasn’t a member. Do a Google search.
3. She was a mayor.
4. She quit.
5. Association with a fund-raising scheme that she wasn’t privy to does not indict her.
JH: True.
LG: Political rival, anyone?
FP: My mother in law would say the same thing about me.
CC: Um, no. They don’t. Its the ALASKA National Guard.
Just because people are Republicans, doesn’t mean they’re conservatives. Republican is a party. Conservative is an ideology. And, interestingly, this is the second time you’ve written about being an Obama supporter. Lots of current Obama supporters did support McCain in 2000. He was a liberal alternative to Al Gore.
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
1. It didn’t succeed but it was based on charges of cronyism. Not illegal, but we’ve had enough of cronyism and “hiring your cousin” these last 8 years. This doesn’t represent change.
2. Ah, yes. You are correct. Her husband was from 1995-2002 (except for 2000). She just submitted a welcoming video to their 2008 convention and wish them success. My bad.
3. She is campaigning as someone who is a reformer. Alaska received more earmark money per citizen this year than any other state under her leadership. And it is not common at all for mayors in a town her size to seek such disproportionate earmarks.
4. The same year that she became Director, it was reported that Stevens had taken advantage of lax Senate rules to use his political influence to earn a large amount of his personal wealth. She stayed as a director for 2 years.
5. Yet.
JH: No more enthusiasm than age and citizenship?
LG: Not the only Republican who is unhappy. And she’s a Republican woman too.
FP: I love my MIL. She’s terrific. Sorry to hear that.
CC: Except that McCain’s campaign rep is trying to claim that Palin has foreign policy experience and that she has Commander-in-Chief experience over the Alaska National Guard.
Just because someone is an Evangelical Christian doesn’t mean that they are conservative OR Republican.
September 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
JH: No more enthusiasm than age and citizenship?
LG: Not the only Republican who is unhappy. And she’s a Republican woman too.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of state Republican officials in Alaska don’t like her. This is the fall-out from her standing up to the establishment and taking on her own party. We’ve got the same crap going on here in Texas. State Republicans running wild with property taxes. A local conservative talk radio host used to challenge them all the time, and they just couldn’t shut him up. Then he ran for state senate, and won. And they REALLY hate him now. You think the press wouldn’t run around finding every negative statement from somebody with an R next to their name if he went for higher office? They absolutely would. So as far as I’m concerned those statements alone tell me she’s a true reformer. You don’t piss off your own party and get where she’s gotten without the support of the voters.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 am
Hmm. Alaskan Republicans like…
Pat Buchanan?
“She Just Is Not Ready to Be Commander-in-Chief”
Noah Millman?
I realize, of course, that she’s totally unqualified to be President at this point in time. If McCain were to die in February 2009, I hope Palin would have the good sense to appoint someone who is more ready to be President to be her Vice President, on the understanding that she would then resign and be appointed Vice President by her successor.
Jonah Goldberg?
I agree entirely with readers who think Palin has vulnerabilities on the experience issue.
Ramesh Ponnuro?
Palin has been governor for about two minutes. Thanks to McCain’s decision, Palin could be commander-in-chief next year. That may strike people as a reckless choice; it strikes me that way. And McCain’s age raised the stakes on this issue…Tokenism. Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man?
Awkward.
And the silence from many Republican senators and representatives has been pretty deafening.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 am
miteegirl,
Well if you love Obama so much go ahead and vote for him. I could go on and on about why Republican’s in Alaska don’t like her such as she got a number of them to quit, beat a number of them in elections, and has instituted ethics reforms that has “power” people unhappy. No wonder many current US. Senators and Republican’s are super excited about her, she will come to Washington and drain the swamp. If you want to continue to listen to the talking points and from how I’ve read it you are analyzing her with an already pre-judged motivation, fine.
However, as its been noted before our less experienced candidate is at the bottom of the Republican ticket. Versus Obama and Biden who’s inexperience is at the top of the ticket. Can you please tell me how Mr. Obama is ready to be Commander-in-Chief? Since you want to talk about serious issues, do you not have any problems with Mr. Obama?
- What about his almost total lack of experience? 3 years in the Senate and half that time has been running for President.
- Virtually NO legislative accomplishments to speak of
- A total lack of bipartisan working relationships. I thought he was all about reaching out and ending “business as usual”?
- Voted “present” 160 times in the Illinois chamber because he couldn’t take a stand on issues.
- He said the Iraq surge would be a failure. Its been anything but that.
- His executive experience was almost solely with the Chicago Annenburg Challenge where they spent almost $100 million to improve schools and their own closing report noted there were virtually no accomplishments or improvements to speak of. After spending $100 million!
- His working and friendly relationship with outspoken domestic terrorist Randy Ayers
- His shady real estate deals with convicted felon (and friend) Tony Rezko
- He attended a church for 20 years with a pastor known for inflaming anti-US hatred and bigoted comments, yet he said he never “heard anything like that.”
Then you have Joe Biden who has lots of Washington experience, but no executive experience what so ever. He also has been wrong a lot in foreign policy such as:
- Was against Reagan and supported detente in the cold war with the Soviet Union.
- Voted AGAINST the first Gulf War, Desert Storm
- Voted FOR Gulf War II, Iraqi Freedom
- Voted AGAINST the surge
- Pushed a plan to unilaterally (I thought we were for working with allies) splitting Iraq into three sectarian parts which would have led to full on civil war.
The guy can’t seem to get much right there on foreign policy. Yet he is a heartbeat from the Presidency. He’s been a Washington insider for over 30 years, yeah, a real advocate for Change.
So while you can have fun nitpicking Gov. Palin through dark colored glasses and drink the media kool-aid good luck with your “CHANGE” pick. I’ll be praying for all of us.
By the way. You talk of tokenism. Would anyone be bringing up such an issue if Gov. Palin was a man? Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia was on the short list for the Democratic VP pick, yet he has the same experience as Gov. Palin. Would he have been a “token” pick? I didn’t hear anyone saying he didn’t have enough experience. Have you ever considered that Sen. McCain liked Gov. Palin’s reform credentials? So given your arguments, Gov. Palin would be one heartbeat from the Presidency, and the inexperienced Sen. Obama would be zero heartbeats from the Presidency. Not a hard decision in my book.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:05 am
I appreciate your taking the time to take that many quotes out of context. Its really quite impressive. Additionally, I appreciate your commitment to ignoring that our Vice Presidential nominee has heaps more experience than your Presidential nominee…and he’s running for President. His qualifications? According to him, the mere act of running makes him qualified. Huh. Awkward is right.
I have no intention of defending Pat Buchanan. He’s a jerk and occasionally an anti-Semite to boot. But his followers flock to him for a very specific reason: He preaches the same kind of limited government, non-interference that we get from Ron Paul, and just like Ron Paul, he’s a lot of good ideas, taken to the extreme and mixed with a volatile and totally unlikeable, if not utterly repugnant personality.
And next time, please get up to date on your Palin myths. Half of the stuff you posted here was debunked two days ago.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:06 am
By the way EM, very good points.
I find the media and the left have a serious lack of understanding of evangelicals and Conservative Catholics which is why they continue to miss the point entirely on how we vote.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 am
EM, a follow up to your point on Obama’s “experience” from his own mouth less than 24 hours ago:
“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,†Obama said.
What Mr. Obama conveniently left out is that as Governor of Alaska, she managed over 25,000 employees and a $10+ billion budget.
Experience indeed…
PS… Talking about Obama’s judgement, who is stupid enough to come out and say what he did above and look like a fool? I almost couldn’t believe it when I read it the first time. His experience is his experience running for President? I assume that qualifies anyone running for office… Huh? *still shaking my head*
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 am
Hmm. Alaskan Republicans like…
Pat Buchanan?
Right…she should be so ashamed that Pat Buchanan doesn’t like her… Ha.. But, in any case, even though I don’t consider Pat Buchanan all that relevant, if it makes you feel better he has apparently taken another look at Palin’s credentials and has now penned an article supporting her.
As for your other quotes…I’m actually surprised you didn’t quote Kathryn Lopez too, because the NYTimes said she wasn’t happy with the Palin pick either. In reality they had grabbed an EMAIL she was quoting and said it was her own views.
If you’re actually interested in what they all really believe, go and read The Corner for a day or so.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“I guess the Republican party will pick up a few votes here and there from women more concerned with gender solidarity than actual ideology”
Yeah, and that’s not fair! I mean, it’s not as though a lot of black people are going to vote for Obama just because he’s…
Wait… What?
Nevermind.
September 3rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Out of context? The only way that context could render those quotes moot is if the following sentences looked like this:
Noah Millman?
I realize, of course, that she’s totally unqualified to be President at this point in time. Um, or not.
Jonah Goldberg?
I agree entirely with readers who think Palin has vulnerabilities on the experience issue. Oh, wait! No I don’t.
Ramesh Ponnuro?
Palin has been governor for about two minutes. Thanks to McCain’s decision, Palin could be commander-in-chief next year. That may strike people as a reckless choice; it strikes me that way. And McCain’s age raised the stakes on this issue…Tokenism. Can anyone say with a straight face that Palin would have gotten picked if she were a man? Just kidding! It’s Opposite Day!
Peggy Noonan: It’s over….The most qualified? No! I think they went for this — excuse me– political bullshit about narratives –
Ah, I don’t need to quote it. You can listen to Chuck Todd, Peggy Noonan and friends here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-mike-murphy_n_123647.html
****
Look. It’s a bad year. I feel for you. The Dems had to deal with Kerry in 2004 and Lieberman in 2000. You’re tough. You’ll get through this.