On the surface, [Sarah] Palin seems to be a champion broadly embraced by evangelicals. Yet in recent weeks, some polls suggest that she may not be significantly boosting support for the top of the GOP ticket among undecided White evangelicals, a key demographic.
Why is this? In the Sunbelt and heartland suburbs where middle class evangelicals determine the outcome of national elections, I detect a growing unease with Palin as a potential president. It predates her disastrous interview with Katie Couric and the conservative columnists’ calls for her to step aside. It may be slowed by her performance in the vice presidential debate, but it is unlikely to be reversed.
“Gov. Palin is gifted and full of potential, and the media has been embarrassingly and abysmally condescending toward her,” said the Rev. Kendall Harmon, a conservative Episcopal leader from Summerville, S.C. “She has much to offer but she is not ready to take on this assignment. She lacks the credentials – at this time – to be in this position. This is too much too soon.”
Why does it not surprise me that Pinksy’s one attribution is from a Lake Champlain Sunbelter.
Dear Dr. Harmon, many of us share your concerns about lack of experience, in particular on the top of the opposite ticket. We all have to judge what we consider most important.
I am being sincere when I say that, assuming they are elected, I hope Obama and Biden perform better than I expect them to.
McCain would be better than Obama, imo. Someone said a long, long time ago when we started having trouble with autocratic bishops, “It is easier to teach a believing pastor to be a bishop… than to teach an autocratic bishop to pastor.” In other words, Biden won’t change his stripes. And so, irrespective of whether she’s seasoned enough, Sarah would be better than Joe. Just my $.02.
Kendall:
a) I’m extremely disappointed that you would allow yourself to be used politically
b) Palin is not ready, bur Barack is? based on what, exactly?
c) Do you endorse the 3 charges made by the author of the article:
1. Mean streak?
2. Exaggeration?
3. Stridence?
Where’s the evidence for these charges? This is a mud-slinging attack on her character. What are you doing in this story?
Having said that, Who in the world IS ready for the presidency? I’d rank the four with Palin 2nd (after McCain) and Obama last.
Have you read her bio? Have you researched her tenure as governor? Are you aware of the showdown she initiated with the big-3 oil companies and her work with the legislature to launch the Trans-Canada pipeline?
Are you familiar with how Federal Highway Funds are distributed to the states? Do you know what her statements/obligations/responsibilities are with regard to Federal Highway projects?
Are you familiar with her willingness to resign her public sector positions and levy ethics charges against the chairman of the AK Republican party? By all expectations that should have been the end of her political career. It was NOT the smart political move. It was however, a move suggesting integrity and strength of character.
What are YOUR credentials to be evaluating the qualifications of candidates for Vice President?
-RedHatRob
Phil, please don’t turn this thread into one of name-calling. I presume your “Lake Champlain sunbelter” comment is referring to Dr. Harmon? For the record, he grew up in NJ, not Lake Champlain. Secondly, nowhere does Pinsky state that Kendall represents or even typifies all or most [b]SOUTHERN[/b] evangelicals.
It’s a simple story. Pinksy wants to show that there is not unanimous evangelical support for Palin – helping to undercut a common media theme that all evangelicals (or more often they say “fundamentalists”) will immediately abandon any other convictions and concerns and vote for Palin just because she’s “one of them.”
So, Pinksy seeks out an articulate evangelical who has concerns about Palin’s inexperience. In this case it happened to be Kendall. Is Kendall the only evangelical with these concerns? I don’t think so.
In any case, our plea remains. Do not turn this into a thread attacking WHO Kendall is or WHERE he is from. Please focus on what he said and the rest of Pinsky’s article.
Thank you. –elfgirl
Kendall, I have the same questions as RedHatRob.
I hope the political no show but great appointed leader Gen Powell’s endorsement and the words of other political no shows that have never served in any elected political office haven’t swayed you.
I voted Saturday, TBTG, and three political parties got at least one of my votes –when [and if] they get counted. This is New Mexico.
This saddens me greatly. I would pray that no one would allow the slanted main stream press that has ripped away any semblance of non-bias from their names in this campaign to form their opinion for them. Now more than ever America needs its brightest and its best to step up to the plate and expose the non-experience of Obama as well as his non-wavering support for abortion at any time for any reason. If you can’t find it in your heart to vote for McCain-Palin just for the life issue, then consider the independent candidate. Remember with McCain-Palin you may not get as much experience as you want in the second seat but with Obama-Biden you get it in the first seat. You might want to look to see his friends are and who he plans to let set his agenda (ACORN) as he announced in a recorded meeting.
And seriously, do you really want the possibility of Joe Biden in the front seat?
“Sad” only begins to describe my reaction.
Kendall, if experience is the key factor in your decision, then on what possible grounds do you give the edge to Obama? He has zero executive experience, and what little he’s muttered on foreign policy has him sympathetic to the Palestinians, invading nuclear-armed Pakistan, and talking to Iran without preconditions (which courtesy Ahmadenijad last week refused to reciprocate). The idea that you’d give more weight to foreign policy inexperience at the bottom of the GOP ticket, than you would to equal inexperience at the TOP of the Dem ticket, just defies good sense and reason, especially when you’ve got a solid McCain at the top of the GOP ticket, and Biden over there on the Dem ticket imagining that we “ran Hezbollah out of Lebanon.”
If you had said, “Soaring oratory is most important to me in a president,” or “I’m ready for a radical change, even with the risks associated with Obama,” we could at least have something to grab onto, but seriously, Kendall… this makes no sense at all.
Nobody thought much of Harry Truman or Teddy Roosevelt when they were selected as vice-presidents either.
The press were horrified when McKinley died and referred to Teddy as “his accidency.” He was too young (42) and too inexperienced. He was only 2 years into his first term as governor when picked for the vice presidency. His previous experience had been a series of local political offices (NY state legislature, New York City police commission) and two national boards – US Civil Service Commission, and under-secretary of the Navy.
Truman never graduated college. He was a 2nd term US senator when picked for vice president. His prior experience in MO was as a “County Judge” which did NOT involve the judiciary, but was the honorific applied to the county commissioners for the county which included Kansas City, MO.
Character, integrity, and ability are the most important qualities. Palin has them, Obama does not. Palin is in her first term as Governor. Obama’s claim for executive experience was as Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago. Which do you suppose is the more challenging position?
-RedHatRob
Matt+ (#7) and all,
We elves don’t know how Kendall intends to vote. We haven’t talked politics. So, please take what I’ve written above, and here, with that clearly in mind.
I am concerned that so many commenters are jumping to the conclusion that Kendall’s remarks necessarily mean he will be voting for Obama.
Did he say that?
Can’t one express concerns about Palin’s qualifications and experience even if one intends to vote for McCain?
I hope Kendall will chime in further here and offer clarification as to what he was trying to say. But I would urge caution about reading more into his words than is there. He didn’t say who he is voting for. At least I didn’t see it.
–elfgirl
If Kendall is voting for McCain, he has a rather curious way of showing his support.
I hope all that reading of Rowan Williams hasn’t subconsciously affected his style of discourse…
-RedHatRob
Ladies and Gentlemen – Please, take a good look and what Kendall is quoted as saying, and do not read in anything that he didn’t say (exegesis vs. eisegesis, anyone?)
If I understand the quote correctly, Kendall says that he has reservations WRT Palin’s level of experience. He does NOT say that he is, as a result, a supporter of Obama.
FWIW, I share some of his reservations concerning Palin. I will, however, go on record as saying that I am more willing to take a chance on Palin’s inexperience in the Vice-Presidential slot than I am on Obama’s inexperience in the Presidential position.
All of that being said, I wouldn’t mind finding what Mark Shea calls “a quixotic third-party candidate” for whom to vote . . . 😉
This thread is disappointing. The article came out before Colin Powell so you can drop that idea. And I have never endorsed anyone for president, and there is no evidence to say I did.
Evangelicals are supposed to be people who care about the truth. The truth is Sarah Palin lacks the qualifications at this time to be President in the opinion of many, including myself. The press has unfortunately too often portrayed evangelicals as a monolith, whihc is not the case. There are many–liberal and conservative politically–who believe Sarah Palin at present isn’t prepared for this position. Some who think this way are evangelicals. It is good for Mark Pinsky to point this out.
Elves, If Kendall has served in elected public office, in my opinion, he has every right to use the extremely high influence of his blog as an Evangelical Anglican at this point in the election timeframe.
If he has never campaigned for a nomination to public office and then campaigned for that office, weighing in now in this venue –not as a neighbor or member of his congregation or among friends face to face, IMO is not appropriate. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.[G&SF;]
I am surprised, Kendall, that you have done what the media has done, which is to hold Sarah Palin to a much higher standard of judgment than we have ever used with vps in the past. We have had many vps who are quite unsuited for the presidency – think Dan Quayle, e.g., but there has NEVER been this kind of outcry. Consider, please, what other VPs have said about the job, that it is indeed no job at all, and consider the requirements laid down by the Constitution – which should be our standard for recruiting a VP. If you don’t like that standard, you need to change the Constitution.
I am hardly excited by Palin, but she is no worse than – and some better than – many many past VPs. Not ready for the presidency? And Spirew Agnew? Remember him? And did the media throw a hissy fit, along with all liberals, about his utter inconsequence? The model of the politically competent, shrewd, experienced VP is – guess who? – none other than Cheney. WOuld you take Cheney over Palin as a VP.
And finally, consider the real world: What president is going to choose a VP who is as competent as he as as ready to take the job, Is that what the POTUS wants at his back? Would YOU want Cheney standing behind you? Larry
[blockquote]Can’t one express concerns about Palin’s qualifications and experience even if one intends to vote for McCain? [/blockquote]
Of course one can…
But one should also be aware of how one’s political observations will be used.
If you are supporting one candidate and desire him to win, then your reservations are best kept to yourself, or shared privately with family & friends.
Voting for a candidate while making public utterances which will be used to persuade others NOT to vote for the candidate is foolishness.
-RedHatRob
Kendall has now chimed in. See #16.
Governor Palin is a great deal more qualified to be Vice-President than Sen. Obama is to be President. Qualifications aside, Sen. Obama is a poster child for the radical Left and as such, would be an unmitigated disaster for this country, the ill effects of which would be felt for a decades
It disappoints me that people will jump on Obama in order to refute doubts raised about Palin. The fallacy is screamingly obvious. I’m not especially impressed with the field as a whole, but the deficiencies of the others don’t do a thing towards raising Palin to the stature of someone whom I would have occupying the Oval Office.
And that’s the point: she appears to have been picked to appeal to a faction, not because of her political skills. The choice has highlighted much bigotry (as Camille Paglia, for one, has pointed out with her usual glee), but it has also demonstrated that evangelicals can’t be counted on to vote as a faction.
Whether they should so vote is supremely arguable. Nobody would count me as an evangelical anyway (I’m firmly central church), but particularly in an election where there are a lot of presenting issues it’s hard to convince me that traditional religious factional issues like abortion are those which I should rank first in importance. Abortion is especially troublesome because I don’t think there is any real chance of prevailing; the only political route at the moment is packing the court, and besides the unlikelihood of succeeding in doing so, the society as a whole would rebel should such an imposition succeed.
Palin, I’m sorry to have to say, strikes me as a lightweight. If she becomes president, I don’t think she will be effective. And in the long term, winning power for someone ineffectual on “your side” is a bad strategy. I don’t think you can score righteousness points in heaven by voting for someone who is likely to be a poor leader simply because she’s on the “right” side of your chosen set of issues.
I join those in their disappointment that Canon Harman would, in my opinion, allow himself to be used by the media. Very disappointed.
Kendall, IMO, to dismiss Sarah Palen’s or anyone’s qualifications is a backhanded endorsement of those running against that person.
America frequently choses presidents from governors – Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Bush. Sitting Senators Kennedy and Nixon after he had been a Vice President. I do not see much difference between a one term senator and a one term Governor – both have slim resumes. Obama does have a voting record of being the most liberal senator – and his foreign policy views seem to be appeasement with those who cannot be appeased. His early career was working as a community organizer and attorney with ACORN which from the MSM appears to be a criminal conspiracy.Thus between slim and bad for the top spot and slim and perhaps unknown for the number two spot I fail to see the Obama has a viable choice. Perhaps Kendall said as much but that part did not make it into the paper. Of course Biden has tons of foreign policy experience – at being wrong most of the time.
What Sarah Palin has is the right judgment which is the best qualification for President at this time. Judgment especially about principles and appointees. Any remark like Rev. Harmon’s I think has to be placed in the context of Sen. Obama’s extreme lack of qualifications and experience to be President–not just VP! At least the experience Gov. Palin has is very positive and recommending; while the experience Sen. Obama has is frightening to evangelicals. This is a choice between two very different ways of governing. It is futile to weigh Gov. Palin’s qualifications in a vacuum instead of against Sen Obama and Biden. An Obama win portends serious oppression of any minority expressions (i.e. fairness doctrine).
Let me express the reactionary view that women, including the beautiful and good Sarah Palin, should not be Executive Branch officials.
That aside, I have no doubt that Ms. Palin is intelligent and competent within her sphere. The deficiency I see is that she has simply not thought about so many matters, preoccupied as she has been taking care of her family and her neighbors. I had some hope for her as a bona fide American nationalist, but it’s embarrasingly clear she has just never thought about American national issues. Thus, her fallback so far has been to accept what she is told by people who do not actually have American national interests at heart.
My problem is this… No one runs for the Presidency alone.. On the ballot, one has to pick a side which includes the vice president, or just NOT vote for president.
What good that does is beyond my understanding. Certainly strongly criticizing one side doen’t give much confidence as to what it is one wants, so there the critical statement is all one has to go on.
How does one almost totally discredit 1/2 of a side, without leaving the impression, he is more in favor of the other?
This is truly sad..
Grandmother in SC
Rev. Kennedy, it IS one issue among many. Perhaps you would like to think that putting in a president who will put up more radically conservative justices up for confirmation should be determinative; I don’t even think it will help. I have major, major issues with the basic civil rights opinions of the Catholic core of the court as it is, but beyond that, having them authorize outlawing abortion is not going to help the cause. Liberal states will rebel; liberals in conservative states will rebel. The abortion battle cannot be won this way; abortion can only effectively be outlawed when the populace becomes convinced of the evil of it, and the court has no moral standing with the populace.
As a side note: The characterization of TR is really quite inaccurate. He was an administration member from back in the Harrison administration, and a prominent NY politician before that.
Dr. Harmon, I am very disappointed in your political accuity that you would bow your knee to experience in favor of those who support the cruelest slaughter of infants and the pro-homosex an unhealthy and unholy lifestyle.
My vote is for Red Hat Rob – you go, guy!
Grandmother, you wrote what I tried to write in my last post. Thank you.
Bob+
. . .still ridin’ for the brand.
Arrrrrgh! We already have enough people claiming that all conservatives care about is money (theirs) and sex (other people’s). Is there not one conservative here, other than myself, who thinks that dealing with the current economic crisis and with the occupation is important enough to decide their vote?!?
The US need a leader who is truly loyal to our country and not educated by islamic extremists and not partial to middle-east interests. Obama is also a product of the radical sleazy Chicago political machine.
C. Wingate – I agree, the economic crisis is important – but the moral compass of someone who can vote to withhold medical care to babies born as a result of botched abortions is very suspect – and I believe that character would also influence choices on economic issues as well.
It seems to me that simple logic says that if Palin is not qualified to be President then Obama is also not qualified to be President and he is running for the top slot. And if this is the deciding factor, then you should vote for neither. This leaves McCain, who after all, is running for the top job.
I think Palin would do just fine. I don’t think that anythiing really perpares someone to be President. They all learn on the job. But character does count.
First of all, it is silly to say “some people of x group won’t be voting for y candidate’. It is a “no duh” kind of story.
I am sure you somewhere you could find a gay African American pro-choice man who supports McCain. No group of people are ever unanimous about anything, including evangelical Christians (shock!).
Secondly, let’s face it, there are only 50 Governors in the US and any of them are qualified to be Vice President. OK, if McCain is elected and dies February 1, 2009, it may be dicey, but Palin would still be as ready to lead as Obama. It is not like there won’t be an experienced staff around her, and the most important quality in leadership is the ability to make executive decisions. That is something Governors do, not congressmen. If McCain dies February 1, 2010, who then would be more qualified than a person front-and-center in the White House (Sarah Palin).
Finally, and this is just my opinion, I don’t like it when respected leaders (and I can think of few I respect more than Canon Harmon) comment on candidates.
Before Sarah Palin was chosen, I was ready to grudgingly, against my better judgement, vote for John McCain, because he is simply, less unqualified than Obama.
After choosing Gov. Palin, I am now READY and willing to vote for McCain, because I think he actually now has the better, stronger ticket.
An Obama/Biden presidency with a Democratic controlled congress will make for two very unpleasant years (until the next congressional election when America sees that folly and puts Republicans back into Congress).
Jim Ellitt,
An Anglo-Catholic, Charismatic, & Evangelical Christian.
I found this article to lack both support (e.g., relying on a reference to “recent polls”) and logical substance (e.g., trying to link particular non-policy issues with the causation of decision making within a particular population.) The MSM is unable to resist the urge to produce negative print for this ticket, even to the point that they must be blind to how utterly biased and illogical they appear.
How many times have we seen this formula:
(a) “You conservatives can trust what I am about to say, because my liberal friends say that I’m like you;”
(b) Here are some unrelated anecdotes;
(c) Here is a reference to “recent polls;”
(d) “The conservative candidate should not appeal to you because of x, y, z.” (where x, y, z are unrelated to policy issues.)
Note that Kendall’s comment does not even support the author’s proposition, while his criticism of the media does apply to this very article. IMHO, I agree that experience is an issue for both tickets, but more so for the other side. It has been a long time since I gave up looking for fairness and honesty in the besotted MSM.
[blockquote]As a side note: The characterization of TR is really quite inaccurate. He was an administration member from back in the Harrison administration, and a prominent NY politician before that. [/blockquote]
The characterization of TR as an “administration member” while technically accurate, conveys the wrong impression – as if TR were someone marked out for greatness. He was not. He was appointed to the US Civil Service Commission by Harrison in 1889, and reappointed four years later by Cleveland. Serving as a member of the US Civil Service Commission is hardly a harbinger of greatness.
He was a local NY politician, though “prominent” is a bit of an exaggeration. He had served in the state legislature. He had run for mayor of NYC, and lost badly. He had served on the NYC Police Commission.
He was elected Governor of New York in the fall of 1898 based largely on his trumpeted exploits as the Lt. Col of the rough riders in the summer of 1898 – puffed up by the Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers. Hearst famously dispatched Remington to Cuba with instructions, “You supply the pictures, I’ll supply the war.”
He was thought of as a blowhard and a lightweight. The “boy wonder.” Out of his league with the civil war veterans who had been running Republican national politics. The press was, of course, famously wrong. Teddy was perhaps our most literary president.
I’m not putting Palin in his class – simply citing the example of press bias. And of course, I’m sure you’re all aware that the Couric & Gibson interviews were edited in such a way as to be most flattering to her [/sarcasm off]
Have you seen the video clips of Obama stumbling when the teleprompter breaks down?
She’s far more articulate and accomplished than the press is giving her credit for.
He’s not quite the mesmerizing policy wonk that they would like us to believe.
-RedHatRob
Kendall, I’m disappointed. Even if you did believe (in error, I would assert) that Governor Palin is not prepared for the vice presidency or presidency, exactly what was the point of your publicly opining so? There are certain things we know about Barrack Obama that, economics and foreign affairs aside, should make it very difficult for any Christian to support him. He is the most ardent, energetic advocate for abortion–and passive infanticide–that has ever headed up a national ticket–bar none. There will be direct and tragic consequences to individual babies as a result of a vote for Obama–and that’s something that his supporters certainly are hoping for (although they’ll never say “babies”). Against that backdrop, it seems for someone to give aid and comfort to such an advocate for abortion–as your quotation did, albeit unwittingly I’m sure–is hardly responsible. You are a hero for many of us, Kendall, which is why this quotation is so devastatingly disheartening.
#39
I’m with you, Jim. I was an unenthusiastic McCain supporter before he chose Gov. Palin as his running mate. Since he picked her, I’ve been a fervent supporter.
Evan Miller
An Anglo-Catholic Christian
Matt Kennedy (#22),
[blockquote]
There are some who seem to think the killing of more than one million babies a year is simply “one issue among many”–a morally repugnant view I think.
[/blockquote]
This is a classic example of innuendo, which is a form of false witness. No one in the scene is advocating killing babies. The suggestion here by innuendo is that Obama advocates killing babies.
Shame.
Aside to Kendall: I share entirely your views about Governor Palin.
stabill – then how do you see Sen. Obama’s rejection of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would require medical care for babies born as a result of botched abortions? He specifically voted against/did not support this measure, even though it included language that the pro-abortion side agreed with. The result of his vote against a bill like this is babies dead due to lack of medical care.
The gamble is enormous. In a stroke, McCain gratuitously forfeited his most powerful argument against Obama. And this was even before Palin’s inevitable liabilities began to pile up….And worst, the paucity of any Palin record or expressed conviction on the major issues of our time.”
–Charles Krauthammer
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/can_palin_deliver_nine_weeks_o.html
The word “experience” appears 91 times in the Federalist Papers, those distillations of conservative sense and sensibility. Madison, Hamilton and Jay said that truths are “taught” and “corroborated” by experience. These writers were eager to “consult” and be “led” by experience. They spoke of “indubitable” and “unequivocal” lessons from experience, the “testimony” of experience and “the accumulated experience of ages.” “Accumulating” experience is “the parent of wisdom” and a “guide” that “justifies,” “confirms” and can “admonish.” America’s Founders were empiricists and students of history who trusted “that best oracle of wisdom, experience,” which is humanity’s “least fallible guide….”
John McCain’s opponent is by far the least experienced person to receive a presidential nomination in the 75 years since the federal government became a comprehensively intrusive regulatory state and modern weaponry annihilated the protection the nation derived from time and distance. Which is why McCain’s case for his candidacy could, until last Friday, be distilled into two words: Experience matters.
–George Will
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202441.html
Matt Kennedy, thank you for articulating so well what is at stake in this election. I make no apologies for being a one issue voter. That issue is abortion.
At my death I will have to stand
before God and give account of my life. I could not face Him knowing I was silent in deed and word about the slaughter of millions of innocents.
We attribute an almost mythical power to the President and congress’s ability to fix the economy. An ability that is subject to so many factors I for one doubt any one’s promise to do so. But the President and congress can have very real influence on Abortion laws. Direct results not controlled by other factors. Results that can either mean we continue to embrace the culture of death or that we declare that life matters.
And abortion is not the end. Look at the push for euthanasia, for embryonic stem cells, for medical experiments without informed consent, for infanticide.
God has dealt mercifully with us so far. But for how long will He hear the cries of all those innocents before He moves against us? The white robed martyrs plead with Him for justice. Shall I become one of the unjust because of worries over dollars and cents? Shall I be a tyrant for Satan because my IRA is losing money? God forbid. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Actually, I agree with Kendall. She is not ready at this moment. However, in the time since she was announced, and on a very steep learning curve, she managed to hold her own in the Vice Presidential debate. I expected Biden to mop the floor with her, but she held her own, after only about 5 or 6 weeks to prepare. She obviously is a quick learner, and I think given some time could be well-prepared for the presidency. Given all that, she’s in the #2 spot, Obama is in the #1 spot. The Democrats put the inexperienced candidate in the wrong spot….
Stabill – abortion is killing babies. Period.
I concur with Canon Harmon that Sarah Palin is not ready to lead the country as President. And I believe that Barack Obama is very much ready to lead the country — in exactly the wrong direction.
So, I have cast my vote for McCain-Palin. And if they win, I will pray for the President’s good health.
Kendall, with all due respect, either this media outlet sought to use you as a plant to skew the picture by failing to quote you on the issue of Obama’s inexperience and far left views, or you failed to articulate them thereby taking a position and giving a “backhanded” endorsement. If in fact, it is not your intent to “endorse” a candidate, then you need to speak now with similar sentiments of why Obama’s inexperience is wrong for the number one position. Failure to do so will put paid to any thought that you do not endorse candidates.
I do not see where Matt has inaccurately stated your position. I think he is quite clear and accurate. For those of you who do not think Obama is a firm and unrelenting supporter of abortion at any level or any time, I can provide you with untold material – all well documented. He openly lied during the debate about his position in the Illinois legislature. He supports killing of babies.
And for the record, Byzantine, your remarks exhibit what the left does not want revealed. The number of people who will make derogatory remarks about the McCain-Palin ticket simply because they do not believe a woman can lead. Let us hope such ignorance – or is that arrogance – will not saddle this country with four years of the most liberal agenda this country has ever suffered.
Kendall-
It would to easy to pile on so i will not comment but i would like to sit down and talk with you some time. You deserve the benefit of some doubt.
Of course, it’s a mere coincidence that the discovery that sunbelt evangelicals are not a monolith just happens to coincide with the disparagement of the Republican ticket. Don’t you recall in ’84 all the articles about feminist talking about Ferraro’s lack of qualifications in order to show that the feminist were not monolithic?
Kendall is just affirming the dhimmi status of evangelicals in the elite culture.
I’m afraid that I have to join those who feel that by agreeing to be quoted by a left-wing journalist on this subject, in this time before the election, Canon Harmon has done a disservice to his office and to my respect for his judgment.
I agree that Sarah Palin lacks the experience to be heart beat away from the Oval Office. But Barack Obama is equally lacking in relevant experience. So where does that leave one? For me, I would rather the one whose heart appears to be softened to God’s leading, who knows Jesus as her Lord and Savior. Her faith does not qualify her to be President but I would rather someone who know to Whom to turn for guidance than someone whose public positions reflect a faith in culture and public opinion.
Wow — I just got in on this thread — been at a meeting this morning. I don’t see that Kendall’s saying that Sarah Palin “lacks the credentials” to serve as VP is supporting Obama or some other things that some are stating on this thread.
I disagree that Sarah Palin “lacks the credentials” however . . . but then, we’d need to define what exactly are “the credentials” and then measure everyone on an equal stick or the story is essentially meaningless. If “the credentials” are, for instance, “a proven commitment to the Constitution on which our great country rests”, then of course none of the four have “the credentials.” But if “the credentials” pretty much mean “yeh, she could muddle her way through in a pinch” then all four of the candidates have “the credentials” in my opinion.
The main thing I disagree with, however, is the headline of the story, to wit “Many Evangelicals Struggle with the Choice of Sarah Palin.”
We’d really need to know what the author’s definition of “many” is, and then of course we’d need to see a quantitative study whereby it is shown that the author’s definition of “many” matches the results of the study.
And since we don’t have that, then all this story amounts to is the author’s having met some people he deems to be “evangelicals,” being thrilled that they “struggle with the choice of Sarah Palin,” deciding that the number he has met are “many,” slapping a headline on the “story,” and garnering a quote from a very worthy evangelical.
Mission accomplished!
Kendall of course has a right to his opinion and I don’t think it traitorous or wrong of him to express that opinion. I just don’t agree with the point of the story.
If I were going to do the same thing based on my own experience, the headline of the story would be “All but one Evangelical Just Fine with the Choice of Sarah Palin.” ; > )
But . . . unlike the author of this “story,” I didn’t decide to create a story headline [i]based on my personal conversations with “many” “evangelicals” [/i] [as the author defined those two words].
The readers of the “story” will need to determine how much credence they lend to the story’s headline — certainly not worth this level of outcry, it seems to me.
#21. Good point.
Kandall has less experience in ministry than Bishop Spong. Who is more qualified? Let’s stop this game.
When people talk about Palin’s “lack of experience” they are merely trying nicely to say that she isn’t very bright. That’s the point. Period.
[blockquote]The readers of the “story†will need to determine how much credence they lend to the story’s headline—certainly not worth this level of outcry, it seems to me.[/blockquote]
My part in the “outcry” has nothing to do with the article or its lack of credibility.
My concern is for the role of Canon Kendall Harmon (who I admire greatly). He has been a stalwart, on the side of the angels. I’ve profited by reading his postings and listening to his lectures and sermons. He is someone I deeply respect.
[blockquote]Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy. Proverbs 27:6 [/blockquote]
I hate to see him diminish his own credibility. . .
And I profoundly disagree with his judgment of Gov. Palin.
-RedHatRob
Canon Harmon, Mr. Pinksy’s article makes a common mistake of confusing the theologically conservative and the politically conservative. From previous posts and writings of yours I have read, it seems to me you are definitely the former, but probably not the latter.
On your theological views, I am an ardent supporter and admirer. I don’t wish to badger you about your political views because you are absolutely entitled to them. I know of many theological conservatives who are moderate to progressively liberal. I am not certain but I believe that might well describe you as well.
My only criticism is that the author of this article appears to use your quote about inexperience on the part of Sarah Palin, spoken as a THEOLOGICAL conservative and is trying to infer that that is the view of POLITICAL conservatives who are evangelical. It’s a sleight of hand on the part of the author that is meant to sow seeds of doubt among Republican voters.
I do wish the tone of this thread could be toned WAY down. Nothing in your quote remotely advocates abortion or infanticide. And I say that as an “issues voter” to whom pro-life is my primary qualifier for a seeker of political office.
Billings, makes a very good point. And I don’t think Kendall was out of line. I might disagree, but that is a different matter.
I find the hysteria a bit misplaced, as if Barack Obama will nationalize the financial system, run up the deficit, open our borders, and get us involved in endless overseas wars if elected. It is a little late in the game to think that a geriatric senator and his female sidekick are going to restore the Republic.
Kendall, I share your concerns, so that’s at least *two* evangelicals who question her suitability. And the fact I believe that does not mean I support abortion, as Matt and others have tried to imply.
The desperation is showing, and it isn’t very pretty.
Of course she is not qualified. In my opinion she’s probably not qualified to be governor of Alaska, but that’s just my take on it. However, we she to somehow ascend to the presidency, she’d probably do a better job than “W” has.
Rev. Kennedy, for the sake of avoiding a protracted diversion, let us just let it stand in agreement between us that we know abortion to be sinful. Well, what then of politics? Objectively, there are a variety of answers as to why we outlaw murder. An answer that I personally reject is that we obtain some measure or signification of righteousness by doing so. Perhaps we would obtain some such measure for discouraging people from murdering, though as you say, such laws are not entirely (and in some places, not much) successful in so doing. But beyond that, surely the true measure is to be found in that success; indeed, one could argue that lip service is worse than not knowing right from wrong.
But there’s more to it than that. One argument that could be made, and I think a very strong one, is that the outlawing of murder exists in part to provide the procedural support for taking murderers off the street. Which is to say, caging or exiling or killing people is also a sin, except perhaps as response to their intolerable unlawfulness. One could make the argument that this is a properly Christian basis for a penal code, because otherwise there would be little to counter a strictly pacifist “system”. Well, again, this can be judged upon its effectiveness.
And I think you are admitting the validity of such judgments, and the first part of my response, at that end, is that you and I come to different conclusions about how a change in law would affect the prevalence of abortion. But I also believe that the rebellion against the change would bring about its own set of sins, on top of those of the abortions.
The other side of the coin is that one is simply trading sins for sins. If you hold, as I do, that caging those men in Guantanamo without trial is sinful, then a vote for McCain, and thus against abortion, is now a vote for a different sin. The difference is that I think something can be done about the one, but not about the other. Given the likelihood of a Democrat-controlled congress, I don’t see a lot of hope for getting a plainly activist justice through confirmation. I do see hope for getting in an administration which will put those men up for trial. So which counts: a symbolic vote against one sin, or an effective vote for the other? Mind you, certainly in my case, and I suspect also in yours, our presidential votes are in truth mostly symbolic anyway. It is a safe bet that Maryland’s electoral votes will go to Obama, and I imagine that New York’s will as well. I’m a registered Democrat because the only votes I can cast that count are for school board and in the Democratic primary. It might be safe voting for every Republican candidate, in any election in my precinct, because there’s no chance that I will vote for the winning candidate, and therefore cannot be held accountable, on some ledger, for whatever sins the winners commit.
Finally, it seems to me that you are on the brink of saying that no matter how bad a politician someone is, we should vote for them if they are on the right side of whatever touchstone issue one uses. Obviously there is some difference here as to her capabilities, but given that I find them lacking, I’m really hesitant to vote towards putting someone in power who is likely to set back the cause through a lack of competence.
I never accused Kendall of supporting abortion. What I have tried to say as clearly as possible is that Obama supports abortion. Secondly, Kendall states he is not endorsing any candidate. I have pointed out that allowing that article to stand with that statement might as well be an endorsement. I continue to hope the reporter failed to print his entire quote.
Obama has no real executive experience, his legislative output is merely voting the liberal line. What worries me has been the medias silence on his internet money raising that has received large amounts from Saudi, Iran, and other militant Islamic nations or individuals, much through Saudi banks. Palin challenged a crooked Republican governor and won. Her state is I believe the ony one surounded by foreign nations, Canada and Russia, she probably knows more about foreign policy than Obama based on her neighbors. I assume how Kendal is going to vote, my mail-in ballot is already mailed.
What a disappointing statement to be coming from a conservative evangelical.
While you are most certainly entitled to your opinion about Governor Palin, if you are going to make such a statement, it absolutely should have included the obvious view that Senator Obama has zero experience or qualifications — and he is the candidate for President!
As Matt Kennedy has so clearly pointed out, Senator Obama’s views and record on abortion are as bad as anyone in politics. I would call to you attention what the Catholic Archbishop of Denver, [url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/denver-archbishop-obama-committed-abortion/] Charles Chaput [/url] had to say about this. He called Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights major-party presidential candidate since Roe v. Wade.
And let me add some knowledge I have of Senator Biden from one of his former very close advisers. He has described him as an arrogant blow-hard who consistently has been wrong on many judgments in his so-called expertise — foreign policy. The proper way to compare Governor Palin (with some years of executive experience) and Senator Biden is not experience, but judgment. And on that basis, both she and Senator McCain are far better. Today’s news of Senator Biden’s bizarre comments he made in Seattle yesterday about the guaratee that a President Obama will be severely tested in his first six months confirms that his vast experience is no substitute for sound judgment.
In short, your opinion is your opinion. But it certainly ignored appropriate comparison with Senators Obama and Biden, both on very important moral issues like abortion and on judgment.
64# & 65# I think a good bit of the zeitgeist of the campaign has spilled over into this thread driving it far afield from the topic of the article. Many of us, especially fellow Republicans, are very anxious about what an Obama presidency would mean, especially in the area of abortion.
#55
[blockquote] I’m afraid that I have to join those who feel that by agreeing to be quoted by a left-wing journalist on this subject, in this time before the election, Canon Harmon has done a disservice to his office and to my respect for his judgment. [/blockquote]
Some of the disparaging comments on this thread about Canon Harmon’s character go beyond the pale and I hope when cooler heads prevail there will be some apologies as public as these criticisms have been.
Politically, it appears I have some differences with Kendall Harmon (certainly as they apply to Governor Palin’s fitness for office). Theologically, Kendall is a lion of the faith, tirelessly and courageously shining a light on the truth of what is going on in our church. He honors his office every day (as does Father Matt) by the tenaciousness way in which he works in the trenches for the survival of traditional Anglican Christianity here in the US.
It is also true that some African Americans will not support Obama’s election. What is the significance of saying that not every single evangelical thinks Sarah Palin is experienced enough to be president? Is it any different than saying not every Black supports Obama?
>>> If you hold, as I do, that caging those men in Guantanamo without trial is sinful, then a vote for McCain, and thus against abortion, is now a vote for a different sin. <<< I'm having a real hard time following that line of reasoning, especially since McCain favors closing Guantanamo.
This evangelical is EXTREMELY concerned at the idea of Ms. Palin becoming VP. Unfortunately, it is obvious that she was chosen simply to placate the conservative activists of the GOP, and get them involved in the McCain campaign (they were very lukewarm up until that point). The fact that she has been shielded from the interview shows (Meet the Press, Face the Nation, or even a press conference!) demonstrates that she simply is not up to the job, and that McCain and the people around him KNOW it. We expect our political leaders to be able to answer tough questioning by knowledgeable people — good grief, if she were to become Prez, she couldn’t avoid tough people (Putin, Chavez, etc.)
And please, leave off attacking the messenger, Canon Harmon!!! He does a great job on this site, and I (for one) appreciate that diverse views on diverse topics are allowed! Hurrah for Harmon!!!
C. Wingate,
No, I don’t believe imprisoning the detainees at Guantanimo without trial is a sin. How silly. I might question its effectivness, but that’s another matter.
Wow, what a firestorm. You can’t even comment and catch up with this moving thread target. What an unscientific national poll, this group of the readers blogging on T1:9. Most of my clergy friends are theologically conservative, but otherwise politically liberal. Go figure! I know when to keep my mouth shut. One is warned not to discuss religion and politics with unsure acquaintances or even friends. I must say especially both together at the same time. I think too many of the “educated†only get their news information from polarized and biased sources. Unfortunately it hampers them from making an informed opinion.
Matt+
Moreover, are you familiar with Senator Obama’s support for the Freedom of “Choice†Act which would remove any hindrance to abortion for any reason
Actually, FOCA seeks to make Roe v. Wade into a law rather than a court decision. It does not “remove any hindrance to abortion for any reason.” It is the same as the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Marriage Amendment-attempting to codify existing law.
his unwillingness to oppose infanticide in [I]llinois?
This is just plain and simply a lie intended to stir up support for your position. The bill voted on was similar to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, but differed in language and was bundled with other bills. The “controversial” part of the bill dealt with providing medical care to a fetus that survived a late-term abortion. This requirement already was passed into law in 1975 and is still on the books in IL., making the “controversy” moot.
The only thing that could hold a Democratic Congress at bay would be a pro-life president committed to vetoing pro-baby killing legislation. Obama is not that man.
A veto by a pro-life President could be overturned by a 2/3 majority. A Democratically controlled Congress may be able to muster that. Also, you assume that McCain would veto FOCA and that may or may not be true. His voting record has been solidly pro-life, but his public statements vacillate.
I HAVE said that anyone who does support Obama is supporting and facilitating abortion whether they intend to do so or not.
This argument can apply to almost anything. In your State (NY) just by paying taxes you are helping to pay for abortions, so you (even if you choose to be tax exempt, you still pay sales tax for personal expenses) and members of your congregation are facilitating abortion whether you intend to do so or not.
The point of the article is that many (or some at least) Evangelicals struggle with Sarah Palin’s credentials. Your point is that supporting Obama makes you an accessory to infanticide.
Uh, Cole, since the McCain campaign refuses to allow Gov. Palin to be interviewed on her own (she was alarmingly flummoxed by even the puff-ball questions of Katie Couric, see my #75 above), I suppose we are supposed to simply close our minds and accept the McCain campaign’s assertions of her fitness to be one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the most powerful office in the world?? Not this voter!
If she is truly qualified, she should be held to the same standards as the other major candidates, and engage in true interviews with knowledgeable, experienced reporters (Meet the Press jumps to mind). The fact that her ‘handlers’ will not allow this (plus her flubs with Ms. Couric) speaks volumes as to their true opinion of her capabilities. We won’t hear those, of course, until they are selling books long after the election!
Little Cabbage, if we only need to hold Gov Palin to the “same standards as” Senators Obama and Biden, she can easily pass.
Senator Biden has ZERO executive experience and has been a legislative empty suit. Senator Biden has diarrhea of the mouth and a proven record of mis-judgments. So the bar is mighty low!
#79 Little Cabbage: Your criticisms of Palin have been overtaken by events.
You should direct your outrage to Obama & Biden:
From CBS News’ Scott Conroy:
[blockquote](COLORADO SPRINGS) It was less than two weeks ago when Sarah Palin astonished her traveling press corps by lifting the curtain (literally) and journeying to the back of her campaign plane to answer reporters’ questions for the first time after 40 days on the campaign trail. But the candidate who has been criticized for having a bunker mentality when it came to the national media can now lay legitimate claim to being more accessible than either Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
In the past two days alone, Palin has answered questions from her national press corps on three separate occasions. On Saturday, she held another plane availability, and on Sunday, she offered an impromptu press conference on the tarmac upon landing in Colorado Springs. A few minutes later, she answered even more questions from reporters during an off-the-record stop at a local ice cream shop.
By contrast, Biden hasn’t held a press conference in more than a month, and Obama hasn’t taken questions from his full traveling press corps since the end of September. John McCain—who spent most of the primary season holding what seemed like one, never-ending media availability—hasn’t done one since Sept. 23.[/blockquote]
You need to get an updated version of the talking points…
-RedHatRob
Brian, I am sure that you will be very happy when Obama wins. We will be very unhappy. But at least our candidates don’t support killing children in the womb.
RE: “What is the significance of saying that not every single evangelical thinks Sarah Palin is experienced enough to be president?”
Ah, but DaveG, according to the author of this article, he’s talked with [i]many[/i] evangelicals who struggle with the choice of Sarah Palin! 🙂
Brian from T19 –
FOCA could result in taxpayer funded abortions. And as far as the Born Alive Act, the language in the Illinois was the same as the federal bill:
And the new law was deemed necessary because babies surviving abortions WERE being left to die – obviously the 1975 legislation needed additional safeguards.
From Obama’s 2001 state senate speech opposing the legislation:
So the baby born alive is NOT a baby because he/she was supposed to be aborted – despicable.
(And, yes, I know this thread is not about Sen. Obama’s abortion record, but when Canon Harmon voices concern about Gov. Palin’s lack of experience and nothing about Sen Obama’s lack of experience and advocacy for abortion, the heart is just sad.)
Well, well, sounds like her handlers decided they better allow her to stroll to the back of the plane once in awhile. Note that it’s all ‘impromptu’, and ‘off-the-record’. In other words, no follow-ups, keep it casual, etc., etc. Such switches are another signal that the campaigns are entering the final weeks.
This is simply NOT enough for someone who will be only one heartbeat away from the Oval Office! To repeat: I’ll be impressed when she actually sits across from Tom Brokaw or another experienced journalist and spends 30 minutes answering the tough questions which she would face if she became Prez. McCain, Biden and Obama have ALL participated in this sort of interview multiple times over many years. It is expected of those seeking national office. Why not Palin? (I think we all know the answer: she’s simply NOT ready).
Sorry Brian from T-19, you need to check your opinons before expressing them as fact.
I stand by my statement. Obama lied.
The majority of these comments confirm my suspicion that the most vocal evangelicals are Republicans. Sarah Palin is so plainly not qualified for the position to which she has been nominated that even most conservative Republican commentators (Brooks, Will, Krauthammer, Buckley, et.al) have spoken of her unreadiness. Normally, it is not very important who the VP candidate is, but John McCain is 72 years old and has a checkered health record, so who the #2 is becomes a matter of much greater importance.
The bitter tone of these comments is just one of many reasons that the younger generation is being turned away from the evangelical movement. It is that aforementioned meanness factor. I invite you to read Christine Wicker, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis in the Church. Wicker, former religion reporter for The Dallas Morning News, and herself an evangelical, has some words and some facts that some of you might benefit considering.
Phillip
Little Cabbage #79: I thought my remarks were politically neutral, but since you brought it up, if Gerald Ford stumbled on his feet, it made the biggest news story of the day. If Sarah Palin says one thing in Couric’s interview that may have not been the best answer, that is the total summary of the interview in the mainstream national media. That really makes one of my points. The rest of the interview was ignored. That is why her handlers wanted the nation to judge her in an open debate rather than through the filter of the media. This comment is primarily about the process and not about the candidates.
Phillip, just what is it that makes the Governor of a state “plainly not qualified” while a first term Senator who has held no executive office of any kind presumably is?
Is it because she is a woman? Is it because he is a slick orator? Is it based on their positions on issues? What’s the standards you are applying?
Dear Friends,
If anyone does not understand, or accept the FACT that the writers, producers, reporters, anchor men/women, etc. of the Liberal media are MOSTLY for Obama and are actively campaigning for him by putting out stories, writings, etc. that are advantageous to Obama, please, please, please, do NOT make public comment on this election.
Reason: The comments are most likely to be twisted and used to the furtherance of the agenda, and not for fair and honest political discourse or analysis.
Some of my clerical brothers are better priest than they are politicians. Please, in politics, let’s not inadvertently make the same mistake we made with the Liberals in the Church – which has brought us to where we now find ourselves.
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington, TX
But, Phillip, what makes her unqualified? Her stint on the city council or as mayor? Her election as governor? Her negotiation on the natural gas pipeline, with Canada among others? Her confronting the oil companies? Her walking away from a high-paying ethics commission job because she knew it was corrupt and she wouldn’t play along? Just saying she’s not qualified when she is the governor of a state doesn’t tell me anything except that you read the MSM. And to say generalities, like she’s not curious, doesn’t tell me anything either – since we have no real way of knowing that – it’s speculation. Is she not a D.C. Beltway player? Right, she’s not – is that what makes her not qualified? And Sen. Biden is just because he knows the players, not that he’s actually had to make executive decisions?
Like I said, just saying she’s not qualified tells me nothing. What actions has she taken as governor or as vice-presidential candidate that are the basis for you saying she’s unqualified? And I’m asking in sincerity – I’m not Republican or Democrat, I’m an independent who has voted for both parties and third parties.
#85 Little Cabbage:
[blockquote]Well, well, sounds like her handlers decided they better allow her to stroll to the back of the plane once in awhile. Note that it’s all ‘impromptu’, and ‘off-the-record’. In other words, no follow-ups, keep it casual, etc., etc. Such switches are another signal that the campaigns are entering the final weeks. [/blockquote]
Once again, your talking points are out of date.
Here’s a sampling of the Q&A;, on the record, and with follow-ups.
[blockquote]After her plane in Colorado Springs, Palin answered no less than 14 questions from the media. It took traveling press secretary Tracey Schmitt three attempts finally to get the governor to move along.
After reaffirming her belief that some parts of Obama’s tax plan carry “socialist principles,†Palin was asked whether she thought the government’s move to pump money into U.S. banks was also socialist. It isn’t difficult to imagine the Sarah Palin of a month ago getting tripped up by this question, but her answer this time was clear and concise.
“No, I do not,†she said. “And I believe that there are those measures that had to be taken by Congress to shore up not only the housing market but the credit markets also to make sure that that’s not frozen, so that our small businesses have opportunities to borrow.â€
When she brought three of her young children to a Coldstone Creamery a few minutes later, Palin took even more questions from reporters, confidently approaching the cameras, rather than trying to avoid them.
Asked for her reaction to Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s recent suggestion that the media should investigate members of Congress who may hold “un-American†views, Palin didn’t hesitate.
“Well, that’s quite subjective,” she said. “I would think that anyone running and wanting to serve in Congress is quite pro-America. You know, that is the mission, to better this country. So I would question what the intent of that would be.”
Transitioning to the rising violence in Afghanistan, Palin meandered through her answer a bit more but succeeded in getting several points across.
“And we do need more troops in Afghanistan and we need that same surge strategy that’s worked in Iraq and we need to make sure that we have that counter-insurgency strategy, too, in place,†she said. “We need to grow our military. We need to incentivize our young Americans to realize what it is in terms of benefits and service our military can offer. We need to grow our military and get more troops in there. Work closer with the leaders in Afghanistan and make sure that with our NATO allies also that we are all working together there to fight that War on Terror there. Also, we can’t afford though to lose in Iraq and think we are going to be any better in Afghanistan. That’s why we are still opposed to an early or premature withdrawal from Iraq. We’ve got to win both the wars on both those fronts Afghanistan and Iraq.”[/blockquote]
see the entry here.
Mind you, all that was written by a CBS reporter – not a right-wing blogger.
As to her not sitting down with Brokaw, et al. Why should she? It would be trivial to arrange an interview with Obama or Biden that would thoroughly embarrass and discredit them. They rest easy in the confidence that the main-stream media will protect them.
Biden can’t even remember which Article in the Constitution defines the executive (hint: It’s NOT Article I).
Couric & Gibson’s interviews with Palin were hostile & contemptible.
If I would her, I’d agree to further interviews on only one condition. I get to bring my own camera & cameraman, with rights to release complete footage of the interview at my discretion.
-RedHatRob
This thread is not proving productive nor is it a good witness. I will continue to take comments by email only to ksharmon [at] mindspring [dot] com