I was going to ignore the run-up to November completely, but a conversation in the HHDW's room at the salon finally got me worked up enough to respond to Ms. Palin and the Christian people and organizations that are flocking to her side. Let me say a couple things before I critique evangelicals who think Palin is representative of them. One, yes, I think it's great that the Republicans finally have a woman on the ticket; I just wish it had been a less cynical pick. Libby Dole should have been on the ticket years ago. And if the Repubs are going to trumpet what a step forward this is, they're going to have to admit that they've been sexist and/or racist asshats for generations. You can't take a step forward, after all, unless you've either not been stepping or you've been running behind (the times). Two, I don't care about the pregnant daughter. My daughter was born when I was eighteen, and I'd been 18 less than a month. Pregnancy happens, especially in churches where there is no meaningful, non-idealistic discussion about birth control, human sexuality, and recreational sex. Time to admit that the Bible is written for 14-year old girls who got married to 30-year old men. Universalize the principles all you want, but you need to do it in a context where women are sexual and professional equals. Three, I still think McCain is a good guy. I think he moved right for the nomination, and I think he'll move back toward center if elected. That being said, I'm not voting for him. Three reasons: Iraq, Guantanamo, and the ridiculous deregulation of the media he pushed through the senate. That was the year ('98?) he showed that he was more interested in big money than little money.
Now, the conversation. I watched all four of the big speeches: Biden, Obama, Palin, and McCain. (I tried to watch Giuliani, but I'd rather go back to jail for a week than listen to him speak ever again. He is the quintessential tool, and the Republicans can't seriously talk about "family values" with Rudy "mind if I bang my girlfriends in this apartment meant for 9/11 rescue workers" Giuliani at the mic.) I think they all did a fine job; they were giving prepared speeches, not explaining programs, so I expected them to do a good job. Palin seemed to handle the occasion as well as anyone could have hoped. She was funny, sarcastic, biting, charming, domestic, strong, and all the things the RNC organizers hoped. Oh, and she lied her ass off a couple times. Lied. Not twisted words. Not parsed. Not said what someone will do, since we can't know if that's true yet or not (and she did say Obama would raise taxes--yawn--despite what he clearly said, but I'm not even counting that as a a lie). She just plain lied.
You probably remember the moment. I believe there were two of the bold-faced variety, but let's stick to this one since it's the most easily refutable. She called Obama a man who had written two memoirs and hadn't authored a single piece of legislation. That's a lie, folks. Two choices here, Republicans. Your candidate is a liar or she's grossly misinformed. Since Bush's speechwriter penned the speech, I'm going with the first choice. Rovians have long believed that you just say whatever you want and your base will support you because they want it to be true. Ah, but Christians are supposed to be different.
Client in the HHDW's chair: "What did you think of Palin's speech?"
Me: "I thought she did a great job. It's just a speech, and as introductions to her for the rest of the country go, it was very good. I don't like that she just flat out lied a couple times."
Client: "They all do that!"
This is a Christian woman. Church-going. Devoted. Serious about faith. Would tell you that she's voting for Republicans because of values, by which she means she's old and therefore afraid of the tidal wave of roving gay people just waiting for Obama to get elected so they can freely molest us straight folks. I have long believed that the Bible isn't clear about nearly as many things as people who believe it insist. I do know it's clear on lying. Apparently, we're going to have to redo the Evangelical Handbook of Political Causes. No longer are the issues abortion, homosexuality, traditional marriage and tax cuts. We'll need to add drilling for oil, but we won't be adding lying. That, it appears, is not a Christian value. Or should I say telling the truth isn't a Christian value. It just goes to show Rove has always been right: people will believe what they want to believe and they will excuse any transgression as long as they have a perceived benefit.
Dear Evangelical Friends,
Sarah Palin is not your friend, nor are the Republicans. There are only two good reasons to choose a candidate whose story completely flies in the face of every campaign slogan the Republicans had been touting up until that point (small government, reform, experience, country first, trustworthiness, character)--and the tortured phrasing to justify the choice in light of those ideals has been delightful because you just know the spinmeisters were blaspheming an unholy god when they started reading her story. The two reasons are: 1. You want women who love Hillary and are disgruntled about her not being selected (ridiculous to believe even a double digit percentage would switch); and 2. You still want the 20 or so million votes from the Christian right, so you got to throw them a bone. And what a bone it's going to be. Pentecostal. Dominionist. Fundamentalist. Vindictive. Book banning. Power mongering. Earmarked fund seeking. God bless America, indeed. And the Christians are flocking to her side. People will truly believe anything as long as they already want to believe it.
