But here's something you need to turn your attention to right away, or regret it forever.
Everyone will be telling you that you'd better bone up on the names of foreign dignitaries, the details of foreign treaties, the detailed history of Upper and Lower Pottsylvania....
Bosh. The MSM will not want to understand you, they will not want to know you. They'll want to shame and destroy you.
And they will ask you questions with no other goal than that one shared objective. They will not care that you are young, or pretty, or accomplished, or your own woman — except insofar as they can leverage those factors against you.
They want to see you groveling, shamed and humiliated and booed from the national stage forever.
I will tell you some of the questions you need to be prepared to answer right now.
- "Do you think women should be pastors?"
- "Why can a woman be a president, but not a pastor?"
- "Do you think wives should submit to their husbands?"
- "Do you obey your husband in all things as to the Lord?"
- "Do you hit your children?"
- "Do you believe in evolution?"
- "Do you believe the world was created in six days, 6000 years ago?"
- "Will everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus go to Hell?"
- "Do you think the Bible is the literal Word of God?"
- "Do you think schools should be forced to teach creationism and the Bible?"
- "Do you believe in homeschooling?"
- "You chose to have your Down syndrome child. Should all women be forced to do what you chose to do?"
- "Are Roman Catholics going to Hell?"
- "Are Mormons going to Hell?"
- "Is John McCain going to Hell?"
- "Is your Down syndrome child a sinner, going to Hell if he doesn't become a bornagainChristian?"
- "Do you speak in tongues?"
And then you need to know when to tell them to shut up and move on to something of substance.
If you want my wife's and my advice as to how to handle it all, I'm in the phonebook.
(Okay, that last part was a laugh. The rest was serious.)
UPDATE I:
See more questions and discussion here.
UPDATE II: I have begun my suggestions as to how Palin can respond, here. They are concluded here.
Posts
46 comments:
Unfortunately, you're probably correct in that the idiots, I mean journalists, in the MSM will be focused on those questions.
It didn't take long for journalists to try and smear her. I read up on her last night, and read a few negative articles already.
Oh, and I noticed when they did the brief (I mean brief news clip about her last night on national news, they did not mention a word about her down syndrome baby and her choice to go through with her pregnancy.
Dan,
I know you are trying to be serious, but you do make me laugh. "Is John McCain going to Hell." You kill me man...you kill me...
Candy — ...they did not mention a word about her down syndrome baby and her choice to go through with her pregnancy.
Oh, I've already seen them mention both, Candy. But do you know how?
1. She "hid" her pregnancy
2. She will neglect her special-needs child if she gets elected.
I kid you not.
If she doesn't approach this as a blood-game, it will be her biggest mistake ever.
Do you think, Dan, she should just refuse to answer those questions, related to faith? (so, e.g., don't go on Larry King Alive or other talk shows like Jay Leno). I know that that the media is a bunch of vultures will try to trip her, but maybe she should just refuse to answer them.
Well, she shouldn't do what Huckabee did. He was pathetic, unprepared, foolish.
Search his name here; I discussed it at some length, if memory serves.
What she must do with these types of questions is to tell the questioner they are irrelevant to the campaign, and goad the MSMer to ask her a relevant question. She could also have a BIO online where she could refer stupid questioners to.
I have a feeling McCain is anticipating the MSM/Dems will cross-tie their shoes on this candidate. Pooh-poohing about how she's going to "neglect" her baby can backfire, irritating women on all sides. The MSM is in uncharted waters. Look for a lot of bumbling damage control from the David Schusters and Matt Lauers of the media.
66 days. This is going to be fun.
The mainstream media will very likely pursue the born-again Christian angle as (from their point of view) her "weak point."
BC had a born-again Christian as premier (~= governor) in the late 80s...Dutch Reformed...the local media did their darnedest to make him look like a buffoon, because of his beliefs. It's that kind of negative portrayal in the MSM that gave me such a bad misimpression of evangelicals for years and years before I came to Christ.
Well, that and the televangelists (especially the Bakkers, Roberts, and Angeley back then), most of whom didn't need any help from the MSM to give "Christianity" a bad name.
Definitely she should expect the questions about evolution and "crashun cyence." They want to make that a make or break deal.
You honestly should email this to her. Maybe there is a mindful aide who will send it her way.
Fred
What is "crashun cyence?"
Creation Science. Usually only Hill Billies and other rubes believe it according to the MSM.
A couple of other probing questions she could be asked:
Did you have pre-marital sex?
Do you believe people who have pre-marital sex go to hell?
Did you husband ever have pre-marital sex?
Will I get a boo, shut up, and boot to the stupid questioners without substance corner in asking why she can be VP or if circumstances require president but not pastor? Get the pastor part and understand submission to her husband and find some of those questions great dangling carrots of the adversary yet, being quite transparent, do not understand the president aspect in regards to folks desiring to be Biblical wielding Titus 2 against such. Someone enlighten me from Scripture, please? I'm not alone ~ there are many women...families that desire to be in God's will asking the same question.
Joyce,
Women not being pastors or presidents is a debatable point, not a dealbreaker. I don't see a prohibition against women teaching in Titus 2 but 1 Timothy 2:12 is a direct verse that seems to preclude women from teaching or authority. However, here's a link to a scholar's analasys of 1 Timothy 2:12 that reaches a different conclusion.
Good caricature, Rob. I'm sure they'll try inane nonsense like that. It will just show all the more what a pathetic pick they have in the #1 slot — that our #2 has more executive, reform, and real-life experience than both the Dem candidates combined.
Don't think it will work in the long run. They'll have to babble, and go dirty. Hopefully, it will backfire.
Ironically (I hope I'm using that much-misused word appropriately), from what I understand, Biden is not popular with many Democrats, precisely because he is the consummate Beltway insider. Governor Palin is hands down the bolder of the two picks for Veep.
Choosing her was a politically* very smart thing to do, for reasons of both image andsubstance—except that, yes, the MSM will be all over her for being one o' them crazy evangelicals.
*I'm writing in political terms. We're already tripping all over ourselves in glee, despite the fact that all the talk of late has been how we need to remember that real change will come through changed hearts as the Gospel is preached and heard, and Christ brings His lost sheep to Himself, and calls them into His kingdom.
I've been thinking what my answers might be (I've been semi-seriously considering seeing if her office needs some communications help) and was wondering what yours might be - I promise to give you all the credit if I get hired... :) - Haven't read the Huckabee stuff - will check there...
Okay, read the Huckabee stuff and here's what I'm thinking - it was, as usual, compelling in its argument AGAINST how the Huckster, God bless 'im, handled things, but I didn't see as much FOR what you might have said. You supply the answers, I'll work my (fairly significant, IMHO) connections in certain political and communications circles, and we'll give the sister some much needed help.
Rob: The media will probably have to ask all those stupid questions because God knows she is the LEAST qualified individual on any of the party tickets to be VP or "a heartbeat away from the presidency."
Here's why liberals like, Rob, or more liberal than him are wrong if they use this argument.
The reason why Palin is more qualified than Obama and Biden is because Obama and Biden are wrong on the issues. Obama and Biden are far leftists who want to change the foundation of our country. Obama and Biden represent a dangerous future that contradict the things that have made our country what it is today.
Palin can surround herself with like-minded people that have more experience. Not only is Obama wrong on the issues but he will surround himself with people that are wrong on the issues - which makes him less qualified to be President.
Furthermore, Obama has not done one thing to qualify himself to be President. Obama started running for President after being a US Senator for two years. He’s only been a Senator for less than 200 working days, he has never chaired one committee or had one meeting of that foreign policy subcommittee he chairs. He had never done one thing to qualify himself to be President other than acquire various offices.
If people like Rob and the MSM really want to go there about experience and try to knock Palin (and I hope the MSM continues to do so) then what they’re going to end up with is not a comparison between Palin and Biden or between Palin and Obama, they're going to end up with a comparison between McCain and Obama, because it is McCain at the top of the ticket.
Hi Jim ~ thanks for that link to read. Proverbs 31, Titus 2, & 1 Timothy 5:14 have come to mind(& Visions Forum's blog ouch) ~ MacArthur commentaries have swung toward a wife/mama being fulfilled and working at/from home. Remember he noted problems in society being traced to mom stepping out and being deceived to think it okay to embrace feminism's "do it all"...one commentary was talking about the 90's(we've compromised a long way since then...or not?). Breaking through the cracks in the ceiling was the feminist mantra of the Pelosi crowd. And thinking of this on roles of women. Hubby & I are working through it as the Spirit teaches. Appreciate your help and being able to ask among those hopefully believing our intent is to know God's truth in so many online, tv, and radio voices. :-)
Sounds like a Matthew 7:6 moment to me.
I still haven't said much opf a good word about McCain Rob.
And as I have said before I am far from alone in thinking purely from a politician stance that Palin was the best choice for the job several weeks ago.
I'm sorry, but your post sounds almost verbatim like the majority of comments I read from Hillary supporters (Your devotion to God aside). You can feel that she isn't the best person for the job without the oblique ad hominem and motiver judgements.
I respectfully disagree though.
Rob: It simply amazes me how you dyed in the wool (pulled over your eyes, if you ask me) Republicans simply fall in line and do the goose step behind a candidate none of you voted for in the primaries and haven't said a good word about until he chose an inexperienced woman from Alaska as his running mate.
False. I actually voted for Sen. McCain in the primaries. (I realize this may get me in trouble with some of my conservative friends). I thought he was the best Republican (after Thompson exited the race) who could beat a democrat.
Rob:I'm an American who loves his God, his country, and his family, in that order.
I always thought it was family over country, but, maybe that's just me.
Carlo,
Here's something that may help you with "translating" Fred's posts in the future.
;-)
Thanks Threegirldad! :=)
Rob,
You're a liberal and a Christian? I'm sorry but I find it very difficult for one to be both. Can a Christian really support abortion? Can a Christian really support gay marriage? Can a Christian really advocate lost freedoms through a transfer of wealth? Can a Christian really view all religions as equal?
I think you have some questions to answer before you can seriously claim to be a liberal and a Christian...frankly I think it's impossible. Perhaps you really are a Christian, saved by grace, but haven't yet seen the light of the errors of liberalism. I hope that's the case.
Carlo made an excellent point a ways back that I'd like to highlight.
The reason why Palin is more qualified than Obama and Biden is because Obama and Biden are wrong on the issues.
This is true, and not all issues are equal. Being pro-abortion, as Obama's platform has the strongest pro-abort language ever, is the big daddy of Christian issues. Over 40 million dead. Obama and Biden are not qualified based on that fact. Dems should soften their abortion stance, Christians aren't about to soften theirs.
If qualifications alone were the only concern, every president, once elected, would have to be re-elected. But no, the President and VP are essentially decisionmakers at the head of a 3 trillion dollar *gulp* infrastructure.
And Rob, I'd let the next VP show us what she can do before we judge her.
Rob,
My apologies for accusing you of being a liberal.
Regarding Palin, she's a governor. She has executive experience at the local, city and state level. That's much more anyone can say about Obama.
True, her time as a govenor has been short (about 1.5 years), however she has accomplished much and has earned the respect of the people of Alaska as well as her fellow governors. This is not a token pick to appease the Christian voter. She is qualified and she is the most conservative candidate willing to take the position.
To be fair, being qualified and experienced doesn't necessarily mean that you will actually be a good VP. And, it doesn't mean that you can handle the rigors of a heated, and oftentimes nasty campaign. That's what I will be watching. Can she handle the negative attacks? Can she articulate her position, be strong when she needs to be? Can she hold her own? If she can, she'll be more than qualified, she will be an excellent VP, with the very real possibility of being President in the near future.
We (McCain/Palin supporters) only ask that you give her a real chance. Don't discount her experience. And if you are an Obama supporter, be realistic with yourself and ask how qualified he is not to be VP, but to be President.
Of course, if you support Obama, you have others issues to resolve other than just lack of experience.
Rob: I did not say I was a liberal...that was Carlo's false accusation. He has a habit of falsely accusing me.
It is not a false accusation. Being a liberal doesn't mean you have to support abortion rights or gay marriage.
Do you believe that the government should defend the unborn at the moment of conception? No.
Do you believe the government should defend marriage between a man and woman? No.
Being a liberal is not just being against abortion personally (which Obama is) and believing that marriage is between a man and a woman(which Obama also believes).
Being a member of a PCA or any conservative church is irrelevant. Lee Irons is a member of an orthodox church and is supporting Obama. It doesn't matter what church you are a member of.
Here is the issue, Sen. McCain is on the right side of most issues that I hold to and most issues that are dear to Christianity. Palin is on the right side of even more issues that are important to Christianity. You are on the wrong side of the issues.
Shannon - I would say also that it's not a hard fast rule that someone can't be liberal and Christian. People who are new born babes in Christ may fall into the this category. We all, as Christians, start out with bad morality and bad theology. God only justifies the wicked. As we become more learned in the faith and get into deeper communion with the Father and the Son, sanctification works in us.
This category does not apply to Rob. He is very learned in the tradition of the Reformed faith for several years. He should know better, but he doesn't.
He use to be more conservative, but since he went back to get his doctorate, in trying to become more wise, (there is no way to say this in a nice way), he has become a fool.
Rob:You're 100% right...I don't believe the government should do what we Christians should do ourselves (defend the unborn, oppose gay marriage, preach the gospel of Christ crucified, etc...).
I said nothing about the government preaching the gospel.
The role of government is to be subject to higher powers; ministers of God; and protect human life and establish justice. The very reason for the existence of government, in part is to protect human life. I cannot as a private citizen use physical or deadly force to protect human life of an unborn child in an abortion clinic. No more than I can take it upon myself as a private citizen to go around and use force to prevent people from stealing. The very reason for the existence of government is to defend life and property.
The government which bears the sword to punish evil are the ordained ministers of God that can do that. Sen. McCain (mostly) and Gov. Palin (more fully) reflect those views.
Rob, in your 7:58 post, you wrote:
As for OTJ training for Gov. Palin, it didn't work for W and I'm not willing to cast my vote for an inexperienced
Are you saying W is not qualified? OTJ training is experience so what you're saying is that experience sometimes does not matter. Some like W never get it. I agree.
For example, Dan Quayle wasn't ready in 1988. He wasn't ready in '92 either. My vote for Ross Perot (yes, like you) was solid after GHWB had a health scare during the campaign.
You're 100% right...I don't believe the government should do what we Christians should do ourselves (defend the unborn, oppose gay marriage, preach the gospel of Christ crucified, etc...).
Your accusations are false and demonstrate your lack of Christian character.
I've having trouble digesting this. Why don't you believe government should do what ostensibly is the right thing to do (exc. preach the gospel - that's a personal decision)? Isn't government made up of people? Aren't Christian principles helpful to everyone?
You ordered CR to "meditate ahwile on" Matthew 5:22 and 2 Timothy. I thought I'd be helpful and provide links to your references.
Matthew 5:22--But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[a]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[b]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Now 'Raca' is an expletive. I don't want to throw off Dan's perfect Cuss-O-Meter rating, but who called who an expletive here?
And Verse 8 in 2 Tim reads: So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner.
Funny, you sound ashamed. The Lord says "Do not hinder the children" (NIV, Mt 9:19) and you say, "Do not hinder the government about the children."
Got any better Bible verses, brother?
Jim: Why don't you believe government should do what ostensibly is the right thing to do (exc. preach the gospel - that's a personal decision)? Isn't government made up of people? Aren't Christian principles helpful to everyone?
Jim, I wanted to clarify how I and the Bible understands the differences between the church and the state(government). Both have distinct and particular roles to perform and have boundaries to their spheres of authority. Both are institutions of the Lord - i.e. one is not secular and the other is sacred. Both are sacred institutions.
As I said in my earlier post, only the government can use deadly force (the sword) to punish evil. That role belongs to the government and not to the church. And anytime the church has tried to usurp this role from the government, it has resulted in disaster. This is where Obama and Biden and Rob fail to understand. Obama says that the decision to have an abortion is not an easy decision and should be made between her, her pastor and her doctor and her spouse. Rob believes that the goverment "should not do what we we should do?"
But what the government should and must do is be the government and defend life.
On the other hand, the church's duty is to make disciples. That is the sacred duty, not of the state, but the church.
Now, the question becomes, what does the church do when the government actually sanctions things like abortion, or gay marriage. What then does the church do? Should it just remain silent? Is the church forbidden to speak out on important ethical issues. Of course not. Who else, but the church, should speak out to the state when it is derelict in its sacred duty on the most important ethical matters like abortion or gay marriage.
Like I said, if you believe that it is not merely a secular duty for government to defend life, but a sacred duty, then not only should should the church speak out on important ethical issues, it must speak out. Who else but the church will speak out on this? You see what I am saying? It's not that the church should just be saying, we as Christians need to stop having abortions (we definitely should not be having abortions!) or that we Christians need to proclaim the gospel (we absolutly must be doing that), but the church should speak out on important ethical issues that the government is bound to take on.
So, I know what you are trying to say, by asking, isn't the government made of people. But how I am using it, and how the Bible uses it (remember Romans 13 was written in a time of the Caesars), I am talking of the two distinct roles. Proclamation of the gospel belongs to the church, alone.
Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin best reflect what the role of government should be (albeit, far from perfect) but way better than Obama and Biden at least on the most important ethical ethical issues.
No need to explain the Bible to me, Cr. I taught Romans two years ago and I assume you know it backwards and forwards as well.
I was responding specifically to Rob's point:"I don't believe the government should do what we Christians should do ourselves."
My question was, Why not? As you said, shouldn't government protect life? But if you support abortion rights then you are supporting abortion. Rob's dichotomy requires a lobotomy to make any sense.
He's uncritically embracing Obama (Perot was a better candidate btw) and, on his blog, one of his "favorite books" listed is "The Audacity of Hype".
:-) He's confused and we should pray for him.
Jim: He's uncritically embracing Obama (Perot was a better candidate btw) and, on his blog, one of his "favorite books" listed is "The Audacity of Hype".
I don't believe Perot was a better candidated when it comes to the most important ethical issues like abortion and homosexual marriages. Perot was pro-choice and not sure where he stood on gay marriage but I thought he was at worst, support it, and at best, indifferent. Perot was not far left like Obama and Biden, but still...
I voted for Perot also because I didn't like what things Bush I was doing, but I was very young and very naive of the impact of the federal courts. I will not make that same again. Obama is wrong on all the issues and so his Biden.
McCain is right on most of the issues and Gov. Palin is right on more issues.
Also, I've gotten an email from a liberal lady friend of mine. She is a far left liberal, but not a far kook fringe Daily Kos hating liberal. She wanted to know what we as "right wingers" thought about having a woman with school age children and a special needs baby in such a consuming job?
Curious some views on that.
I think Jim's question is a good question, Rob. Since government is a sacred institution (it's sacred because it is ordained by God to bear the sword to punish evil), then why do you not believe it should protect the unborn and punish those that perform abortions.
Why, when government is a sacred institution do you not speak out when it does not do the very thing it is suppose to do.
We've left out important executive experience that Palin has in order to be Vice President, but what in part, we have tried to show, is that because McCain is right on some of the most important ethical issues of the day, and Palin is right on most of the important ethical issues of the day, and because McCain and Palin have experience in government (Obama has less than 200 working days experience in the US Senate because has been campaigning for the past two years), then both McCain and Palin are qualified.
Rob,
Fighting for the unborn because God claims them* glorifies God.
You should re-examine this thought: "I don't believe the government should do what we Christians should do ourselves." You didn't answer my question "Why not?" and I don't think you can.
You really haven't made any sense at all in this thread, to be honest. Forget repentance, I'm praying for you for clarity. Regards.
*(Psalm 22:10, Jeremiah 1:4-5, among others)
Rob Mellen — No, no, no, no. You can't post a bunch of comments, get replies, remove all your posts (including the last one, which ended "I'm done with this topic as it is not glorifying to God"), and then post another comment.
Well, you can't do that and get away with it. Not here.
Back to the actual topics of the actual posts.
You don't seem to want to learn anything on this topic, so your "I'm done with this topic" was probably wise. Otherwise, if your concerns were genuine, they're pretty well-addressed on the most recent post.
Folks, no more responding to the comments Rob himself deleted. I deleted only the last one.
On your "Update I" the two links are the same article. Is that intentional?
As I read the questions Sarah Palin should be prepared to answer it's clear to me that some are definitely over the top and I'd be surprised if anyone in the MSM would actually ask them, especially those about who is going to hell. But I'd like to hear her answers to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 on the list. And if she doesn't, what does she have to hide?
Post a Comment