Attacks against Palin; Secular support for Obama, both predictable
By Robert E. Meyer (09/08/08)
John McCain's selection for Vice-President, Sarah Palin, has electrified the conservative base, and has succeeded in attracting some voters back to the Republican ticket, who were resigned to sit out the election, or vote for a minor party candidate.
One would expect the typical knee-jerk criticism about a surprise choice such as Palin, both from the Democrats and the main-stream media. Obviously, Palin's lack of experience at the federal level is a legitimate concern, but it's really the additional, gratuitous piling-on, that is the scornfully predictable behavior I'm referring to.
The revelation that Palin's 17 year-old daughter is pregnant out-of-wedlock, is the most newsworthy item providing fodder for these attacks, despite the fact the girl is engaged to be married to the father of the child. Obama has suggested that foibles of family members are out of bounds, seemingly not wanting a historical examination of his own rearing. That has the same effect as telling people not to think about pink elephants.
Other allegations focus on an attempt to fire an Alaska State Trooper who was married to Palin's sister, and questions about a controversial statement made by the preacher of the church Palin's family attended years ago. Undoubtedly, other things will surface as the dirt-digging excavators get busy dissecting Palin's past. So what else is new?
Many editorial writers can probably tell you stories about some E-mail serial stalker(s) who is only too happy to provide a barrage of spam or huffy rebuttals to the latest piece. I have had at least one liberal or atheist shadowing me for the entire time I've been writing editorials. I refer to such characters as "the secularist Du Jour."
The current attention-seeker is using the incident of Palin's daughter to launch a campaign of playground taunting. This individual, following the lead of liberal talking points, asks the questions, "What about the party of values?", and "How can Palin be Vice-President when she can't take care of her own household?"
Alright, for the record I have to admit that the revelation about Palin's daughter is an embarrassing and shameful incident. Should that change my decision about which presidential ticket is stronger on family values, which would seem to be an objective of the spammer's efforts?"
Politics is partially about legislating public policies that are going to be favorable to different groups or individuals. Which ticket is going to promote more issues that are applauded by groups who are advocates for "family values?"
Of course, one can conveniently redefine principles in an effort to change the terms of the debate. One correspondent asked me whether it was more important to oppose abortion, or to support the Family Medical Leave Act? Alright, I'll up the ante then; any political party that doesn't pay for food, a home and transportation, must be anti-family. We shift from ethics and morality to only economic considerations as family values.
In discussing advocacy groups, out of curiosity, I wanted to see if any atheist groups supported Obama. As I searched the web, I typed in as a search term, "Atheists for Obama," and came to the following link: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/AtheistsforObama.
I could not locate any such similar acclamation for McCain, although I came across a blogger who suggested that he form a group called "Atheists for McCain." His reasoning was that since atheists are the most despised special interest group in the country, the publicity would harm McCain's campaign.
One must observe that Obama professes to be a Christian, and has said far more about his faith publicly than McCain. In fact, in McCain's past, there are comments disparaging the religious right. A less careful observer might have come to the conclusion that McCain was deliberately eschewing the support of religious voters. What then explains the allegiance of radical secularists to Obama?
I am not one to referee the authenticity of any one's claim to faith, but apparently atheists themselves do not take Obama seriously, or reason that his professions will have little impact influencing administration of public policy. Rather troubling is the fact that atheists have had such closely-knit ideological ties with the Democratic platform in recent elections.
It seems curious how a group of folks who profess to be so “open-minded,” “independent,” enlightened,” and “free-thinking,” can be similarly monolithic in their political persuasions. This is evidenced by the near unanimous support Obama is given from militant atheist organizations.
Without any other guidance, that tells me all I need to know. Once again, it's all so predictable.
Robert E. Meyer
(Printer friendly version) Email: Robert E. Meyer
