You Can't Tell the Players Without a Scorecard
Sarah Palin is a dangerous and crazy right-wing creationist fundy, who believes in abstinence education, opposes abortion rights, and thinks the “controversy” should be taught in public schools.
Joe Biden, on the other hand, is a liberal Roman Catholic with alleged respect for the non-religious, who believes in real sex education, supports abortion rights, and — while not on the record in the bogus creationism-evolution debate — most likely supports the teaching of only science in the science classroom.
So here’s the tally, in their vice presidential acceptance speeches:
Mentions of “God”
Palin – 2; Biden – 8
Palin – 1; Biden – 0
in its specifically religious sense:
Palin – 0; Biden – 1
in its sneaky, subliminally religious sense (viz., “faith in the troops”)
Palin – 1; Biden – 0
Palin – 0; Biden – 1
Hey, Exterminator, I enjoyed reading this.
25 comments:
By the scores, it looks to me like they both lost.
DB:
No, they won. Freethinking Americans lost. And will continue to lose.
I think you answered your own question - the campaign knows this may be an issue for her and is intentionally minimizing her rabid religiosity. They let her be herself when she's talking to the smaller theocratic groups without the TV cameras present.
The way I see it is this: Palin was lying the whole time. Biden was (however flawed his views on religion may be) being honest. I don't agree with Biden's stance, but at least he was speaking what he actually believes and thinks. Palin was regurgitating the pap fed to her by McAin't's stable of Rovian minions.
I'd go a step further and say not only is Biden, and I think Obama as well, sincere in their religious comments as opposed to Palin and McCain, their brand of religiosity is far less offensive like Ex described in the post. Here, let's look at it another way as religion should be looked at, like booze...
Most people in this country think there's something wrong with you if you don't drink alcohol, so you better be able to drink a beer with the common folk, be the person people would like to have a beer with, or perhaps even throw back some shots at the bar. Now if, however, you go through a fifth or two a day, that's pretty distasteful to all but a few hardcore alcoholics, so you can't down one at the bar or chug a few funnels of beer, especially if word is out that that's your regular behavior. What you do is have your one beer with the folks, smile, and that's it. Palin is that person, a Christianaholic.
Now in Obama's case, since they had him pegged as a Muslim (the equivalent of being a chardonay drinker), he had to go overboard selling his Christianity (the equivalent of chugging beers at the bar with the common folk). Sadly though, I think his popularity would have been higher if he was the one doing shots instead of Hillary, and instead of that stupid "Committed Christian" brochure.
It makes me proud to know that so many mind-readers visit my blog.
Philly, I ended up sort of agreeing with you, but maybe I misinterpret this:
I'd go a step further and say not only is Biden, and I think Obama as well, sincere in their religious comments as opposed to Palin
Really?
She's VERY "sincere" about her beliefs. What I'd say (and you did) is that her beliefs are much more "hardcore" than Biden or Obama. But she IS sincere. Very, very sincere.
Are you one, too? Where did you arrive at your posted differences between Palin and Biden? Ouija or tea leaves?
The problem with someone like Obama is his pro-religion actions open the door for the nutters like Palin. What he fails to see (or ignores) is that although his continuation of the OFBI for instance may not be so bad under his administration, allowing it to exist means it's there to be exploited by a future nutter like Palin. Also, he fails to see (or ignores) that not all Christians or Christian organizations may be moderates and play fair. The biggest thing of course that he fails to see (or ignores) is his actions fly in the face of the Separation of Church and State.
I don't think it takes a psychic to see whose religiosity would spell more harm.
Evo: What I meant was sincerity in the Convention speeches, which Ex is contrasting here. Biden's religious nods I feel are sincere, whereas Palin's restraint and absence of religious nonsense was insincere because you know she would have LOVED to have given one of those Assembly of God speeches but was no doubt instructed to tone that shit down.
Evo:
But she IS sincere. Very, very sincere.
I can almost hear you saying that in the same tone of voice as: Be afraid. Be very afraid.
By the way, totally off-topic, but does anyone know the origin of that expression? No fair Googling (even though I did).
Philly:
No tea leaves for me. Although I didn't supply multiple links, my characterizations of Palin and Biden are based on things they've said and done in the past. But you're absolutely right if you're taking me to task for saying what either of them "believes." I should have instead said "has spoken in favor of ...."
It's nice to see that you agree with me about the problem with Obama. I've been writing and speaking -- actually yelling -- about that for months, as recently as my last post. Unless he and Biden come out strongly against religious zealots and provide evidence to show that Sarah Palin is one, they're just furthering the theocrats' agenda.
But I'm not convinced that Biden's speech was sincere. I think judging another's "sincerity" is a very subjective matter. As a matter of fact, I don't think that any convention speech is sincere in the same way a conversation over a few beers might be. Thinking that a politician in those circumstances is revealing his or her true feelings is the same as thinking that the guy playing Hamlet is really contemplating killing his step-father. Conventions are theater, nothing more.
Be afraid, be very afraid. - Wednesday, Addams Family
*Yeah, I don't think that's the original, but that's the only one I remember it from.
Ex asked: What the fuck is going on here?
I'm going to give you a hint. But you have to figure it out. Without tea leaves, I hope.
Another thing that hardly came out of her mouth during the speech was this word: REPUBLICAN.
Interesting, huh? How come? It answers both of your questions.
"Be afraid. Be very afraid"
Yes, I was indeed going for something like that, Ex.
I knew it was from an 80's or early 90's horror film, but I had to Google too.
I went to Google and said: "Help me! Help Meeeee!"
OG:
If you're talking about the original Addams Family TV show of the 60s, your reference is earlier than the one I found.
Evo:
I should have known that a guy with a poppy-seed brain would get the right answer.
Are you trying to swat me away from your blog, or is this some sticky trap you expect me to step into?
Evo:
You know you're always welcome here. But if Sarah Palin orders a raid, you might want to make yourself scarce.
an interesting thing about Palin:
a letter from someone who knows her
and an interesting thing about The Family, which I discussed yesterday.
I wonder if The Family has had any influence on the choice of Palin?
I read these sorts of articles and think there is no hope for America, that's very sad.
To be honest, I think the Democrats are playing up their religiosity. It's probable that Biden is no more sincere than Palin, it's just that they're both trying to 'correct' their current public image to draw it towards the middle.
And yes, I think Obama's religion is sincere, too. I also think he took it on for political purposes (quite possibly local political purposes rather than national ones). To be the kind of politician that Obama is -- to be mostly sincere in the way that he is -- you have to have the kind of mind that can bend towards what people want to hear and still mean it.
Lots of people are like that. We're all like that to some extent, and I'm glad there are politicians like that because I prefer them to the ones that are just plain insincere. It still feels a little odd when you're watching it, though.
Ex,
Jeff Goldblum (sp?) - The Fly or was it Jurassic park hmm.
Stermie crack corn, but I don't care...
oz:
I read these sorts of articles and think there is no hope for America, that's very sad.
And very infuriating.
Lynet:
I don't think any American politicians are sincere. Their skill lies in getting you to believe that they're sincere.
One thing I don't understand in your comment: Can you tell me how Obama's religion is both sincere and taken on for political purposes? That seems like a clear case of A and not-A.
Sean:
Mr. sp? is correct.
Evo:
I have no idea what your comment means. And I have nobody to ask because my Zen Master's gone away.
Can you tell me how Obama's religion is both sincere and taken on for political purposes? That seems like a clear case of A and not-A.
Well, that's easy. I think Obama cared a heck of a lot more about political success than about the truth of whether there is a God, I think he set out to believe for political purposes, and I think he succeeded in believing. As much as most people believe, anyway, faith being the weird thing that it is.
Lynet:
Well, now that you've explained what you meant, I'll agree with you. Too bad neither of us has any actual evidence to back up our gut-feeling, but I have the exact same take as you do. Because I'm such an elitist, it's hard for me to imagine that a guy with an obviously topnotch intellect like Obama's started out with a thirst for Jesus. But I think he's so spellbinding to himself, that when he decided to believe for political purposes, he actually talked himself into believing that he "believed" for religious ones. Now, I'm afraid, he's indistinguishable from any other deeply committed Christian -- not necessarily a fundy nutball, but someone who is far too influenced by his own perceived relationship with some god.
"gut feeling"
"It's hard for me to imagine..."
Wow, and you've got the balls to call others on their psychic powers and feelings when you spout stuff like this? Nice.
Philly:
Well, believe it or not, even atheists get gut feelings and have imaginations. We just don't trust those phenomena as evidence.
Post a Comment