Doug Wilson is still thinking aloud about the impact of Sarah Palin's addition to the McCain ticket. I need to get him to give me a list of titles; his is John Has Slain His Thousands. He makes a compelling case for the narrative of this candidacy and the impact Palin may well have on Roe. A taste:
Now consider Sarah Palin's position -- both her story and her gifts. Her story demolishes, in a way no syllogism could, the central appeals of the pro-aborts. And they love to play the violin with this question -- remember that Obama was asked the question earlier in this election cycle. This is a staple in our campaigns: "What if your daughter . . ." "What if your wife . . ."To evangelical critics of Palin as a professional/wife/mother, Wilson replies "presents an absolutely devastating challenge to the feminist narrative for women, and there are no mights involved." I think Wilson adds a weighty point in her favor in observing that Palin has the Reaganesque "ability to speak over the bobble-heads of the anointed media darlings, and take her business straight to the American people." Bush did not have that ability, and it hurt him. I doubt McCain has it. But Palin does. Even former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown recognizes that she has this quality, and the MSM despise her for it.
Suppose you were a middle-aged woman with a bright political career ahead of you, perhaps even at the national level. You and your husband are surprised by a pregnancy, and then on top of that you discover that your baby is a Down's child. We live in a culture that has been prepared in countless ways to accept the story that "we had to make a tough choice." And we are then astonished when someone, instead of making the "tough choice," makes a tough choice instead -- in the full confidence that it is the right choice. Sarah Palin is a "no exceptions" pro-lifer and apparently she believes that the law of God includes her.
As an aside, you've got to love this clip, where Carney of Time says to Wallace of the M/P campaign that Palin has to do interviews. "With who? You?" Wallace replies. "Who cares? Who cares if she can talk to Time magazine?"
And that's just it. I think there are two kinds of people in the world: those who admit that the MSM are heavily biased in favor of liberals, and against (in increasing intensity) conservative, pro-life, practicing-Christians; and those in denial. (For an example of the latter, see this article in — surprise! — Time magazine itself.) But the fact is no longer in serious dispute, at least not among serious, informed people. (Diana West gives a bit of a snapshot of the current situation.)
Liberals might be asked questions intended to elicit information and promote favorable understanding. Conservatives (particularly practicing Christian ones) are generally asked questions designed to destroy, humiliate, get the "gotcha" moment, and render powerless. The MSM shares the DNC's goal: they want Christians to look insane, unhinged, and dangerous. They want them shamed from a public presence as Christians.
Knowing that, what sane person would expose himself to such Matthew 7:6 situations unnecessarily?
Don't forget my earlier article. Mark my words: those questions I listed and other similar questions are already on reporter's laptops, waiting the moment to spring them.
In fact, here are some more:
- Does God talk to you? What does He tell you? Is He talking to you right now?
- Was it God's will for us to murder 146,000,012 innocent Iraqi's and occupy their country?
- Is it God's will for you to win this election and run America?
- Is God a Republican?
- Is your pregnant daughter going to Hell?
- Is her boyfriend going to Hell?
- Have you had sex with anyone beside your husband?
There are some hopeful signs. The WSJ reports that many have caught on to media bias. Plus, they're being watched closely, and not just by Christians. The NYT did an interesting article on Palin's religion. I actually thought it surprisingly balanced, considering the source. But it provoked a very strong negative reaction from non-Christian writer John Podhoretz. Folks are catching on to the MSM's game, and that's good.
Now, briefly, to the ongoing discussion of Palin as a female political leader. We've noted a number of helpful contributions by Doug Wilson to the topic. To those, add the brief piece by Southern Baptist NT professor Denny Burk. The professor pulls a statement from John Piper and Wayne Grudem that presents my own view concisely: "As we move out from the church and the home we move further from what is fairly clear and explicit to what is more ambiguous and inferential."
To this we can add the helpful, candid reflections of Al Mohler.
Finally, David Murrow contributes a revealing personal insight into the character of Sarah Palin, with whom he's worked fairly closely. Turns out that the way she strikes non-moonbats is the way she is.
And on the moonbat note, fits of PDS is now also deemed too boring to allow here. This isn't a democracy. Ankle-biters will just have to content themselves with controlling CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Hollywood, almost anything with "Times" in the title, PBS, NPR, AP, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, and the rest.
(NOTE: this post has been and for a day or two will continue to be updated without notice. Check back from time to time — if it interests you.)