A Positive Perspective on Palin

Just hours after last night's Vice Presidential debate, cnn.com featured an article that provided a brief summary and analysis of the candidates' performances. In the article, Democratic political commentator Paul Begala sums up Biden's and Palin's "approaches" in this way: "You had two different strategies. Joe Biden's strategy was to hammer McCain, link him to the status quo and Bush. He succeeded . . . Sarah Palin's strategy was to defend Sarah Palin and repair her damaged image, and I think she did a pretty good job of that." It seemed that this CNN article sought to provide a balanced presentation, offering praise of both candidates.

As I watched the "youtube" clips and read over the transcript of the vice presidential debate, one quote especially hit me. While responding to moderator Gwen Ifill's question regarding what promises Palin would not be able to keep due to the current "financial crisis," Palin remarked, "And how long have I been at this, like five weeks?" We can question as much as we want whether it was prudent of Senator McCain to choose Governor Sarah Palin in light of her relative lack of political experience, but that will not change the fact that she may very well be our next Vice President. There has been a lot of bashing of all of the candidates, but I feel that Sarah Palin has been especially targeted for numerous reasons (her inexperience, her religious views, her pro-life stance, the actions of her family members, etc.). I would like to say a few positive things about Sarah Palin, particularly in regards to the recent debate. Considering her newness to the political stage, I think it is remarkable that she has done as well as she has, especially in the debate. In those "like five weeks," she has shown herself to be a passionate, dynamic politician who is working to better understand what her role as Vice President would entail. I was especially impressed with Palin's response to Ifill's question regarding who was at fault for the current "subprime lending meltdown." Using colloquialisms such as "Darn right" and "Joe Six Pack" (which some may find repugnant but I personally am not terribly bothered by), Palin point blank placed the blame on the "predator lenders" while also affirming the responsibility of the American people to "refuse to be exploited and taken advantage of." Granted, during the debate Palin brought up the issue of energy several times when it was unrelated to the question at hand, and she failed to clearly articulate a plan for Iraq (two salient flaws), but PBS's Gwen Ifill herself recognized that both candidates sometimes managed to get off topic. After one
question in particular, Ifill said bluntly, "Governor, Senator, neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice president."

In the cnn.com article, "Republican strategist" Amy Holmes characterizes Palin in this way,"She was polished, direct, folksy, and on message. She stressed her personal experience both as a mom and as a governor, from the kitchen table to the executive branch, her record as a reformer and bipartisan deal maker. She even got Biden to agree with her." Whether or not you agree with Palin's politics or approve of McCain's choice, I think that it is only fair to acknowledge that she held her own last night more so than many expected. Her personal touches such as her identification with parents at a soccer game talking about the economy were down-to-earth and facilitated a point of connection with the American people (Yes, Senator Biden provided personal
touches too, like when he spoke about Joey Danco at the gas station, but it seems to me that Governor Palin employed this tactic more often as part of her approach). Many feel that Senator Obama and Senator Biden would bring about the necessary change for our country because they are not of the Republican party that has dominated the executive branch of the government for the past eight years. I would argue that a hockey mom-turned governor would shake up the white house more than a senator who has served for many years in the nation's capital. While there is no substitute for experience, I also feel that Governor Palin has something fresh and unique to offer precisely because she is coming from a different background than those who have been entrenched for years in the political web of Washington D.C.

Linked to the commentary on cnn.com was a list of five different political analysts with their remarks and letter grades (on a scale of "A" through "F") that they awarded each candidate. Although these are simply the opinions of only five analysts (and I question whether their opinions have much more weight than an average American), I wanted to point them out. I thought it was very interesting that there was a relatively small disparity in the letter grades each candidate received from the analysts. Overall, Biden received three A's and two B's. Palin received two A's, two B's and one C (the C was ironically from a political commentator whose first name is Hilary). Overall average ratings submitted by people who simply visited the CNN website have shifted dramatically over the past few hours. When I first wrote this paragraph, CNN website visitors had given Biden an average rating of B and Palin an average rating of D. Looking at the same website only a few hours later, the tables had completely turned, awarding Palin with the overall B and Biden with the overall D. They then shifted back towards Biden again. What grade would you give each candidate?

Reverse Endorsements?

Earlier in the semester Gabriela posted about pastors’ inability to endorse political candidates based on the non-profit status of their church. This led to a string of comments and an interesting discussion in class. It seemed to me like the consensus in our class was that if pastors wanted to formally endorse a candidate in their church, they needed to be ready to give up their tax-exempt status. But what about what I call “reverse endorsements," or pastors and churches that condemn voting for a particular candidate either through word or action. For example, there was an article about Sarah Palin’s former pastor who questioned the salvation of citizens who do not vote for George Bush in 2004. Furthermore, an article from U.S. News and World Report discusses how the Catholic Church frequently denies communion to politicians who are pro-choice, including John Kerry in 2004 and most recently Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden. Many have questioned whether the Catholic Church is overstepping its boundaries with these types of decisions and I question how this action is any different than endorsing a specific candidate. By saying you shouldn’t vote for candidate A, aren’t you saying vote for candidate B?

This is not the first time bishops have denied communion to Catholics over a political issue. In the 1960s, Catholics in New Orleans and St. Louis were refused communion because of their rejection of integration in Catholic schools. The bishops of these dioceses at the time tried to work with the dissenters, but to no avail. Because of their support of segregated schools, these people were not allowed to join in full communion with the church.

These scenarios are not exactly the same, mainly because the events in the 60s did not focus on a single political candidate. However, they both demonstrate the Roman Catholic Church influencing politics and the thinking of the members of the church. This is obviously not an isolated event, so I think the government needs to reconsider its policy on only banning churches from actively endorsing political candidates. In no way do I want to completely remove the discussion of politics from the pew, as I think it is essential to be able to share political opinions with those who have a similar core system of beliefs. However, I think churches, especially those with as much power as the Catholic Church, need to be held in check. Attention should not be brought to specific candidates, whether through word or deed.