The National Review’s John O’Sullivan, who wrote speeches for Margaret Thatcher, gives great insight into the complaints from those who belittle Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention was little more than reading from the teleprompter:
Speakers have to make speeches their own. They have to feel the sentiments and know the facts. After all, if they get something wrong, it will be quoted against them for years — these days on YouTube.
Even then the most sincere speaker may lack the skills to put across a good speech well. Matt Scully is a superb speechwriter, but his best work was sometimes awkwardly delivered.
Not this time.
I devised a small test while watching.
Matt has a slightly aggressive sense of mischief. How would Mrs. Palin deliver his mischievous thrusts? So whenever I heard a hint of Matt’s mischief in the words, I would check out the Governor’s expression.
Invariably there was a glint of mischief in her eyes.
Matt, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
Readers have been blasting US Weekly for their “Babies, Lies and Scandal” Sarah Palin cover. Now, when people are writing to cancel their subscriptions, they are advising readers to be reasonable and “take the time to read the story before deciding to cancel.” In my business, that’s a weak apology. If they’re saying the headline doesn’t match the story, then that’s poor work by some editor and, regardless of the story, someone needs to apologize in a very public way.
Since we are in the election season, I just thought I’d pass along this: You can download, for free, PBS’ American Experience: The Presidents series from iTunesU. There you will find biographies of presidents Roosevelt (FDR), Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and Reagan.
Of the blogs I look at regularly, one that I have often visited and am often enlightened by is Wesley J. Smith’s Secondhand Smoke. Smith says his blog “considers issues involving assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation.” There are a lot of issues he deals with that are not isolated to the world of science but rather intersect with our lives every day.
For example, the whole furor around the nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be vice president by John McCain has brought to the forefront the issue of Down syndrome children and the divergent views about whether people should knowingly give birth to children with this condition. I have already given my views on the subject on this blog, but there are certainly those who disagree as seen just by comments posted here.
Physician and writer Rahul K. Parikh gives what by all appearances is a concerned response to Palin’s decision in an article in Salon:
By knowingly giving birth to a Down syndrome child, Palin represents a minority of women. A 2002 study found that about 90 percent of pregnancies in the United States where the fetus was diagnosed with Down syndrome were terminated.
Rabid anti-choice activists have called that trend eugenics via medicine. But try telling that to a mother who is told early on in her pregnancy that she will be raising a child who will have a host of medical and developmental problems, requiring intense medical and social attention for the rest of his or her life. It can be tragic and nearly impossible news to bear.
Kids with special needs require and deserve intense therapies and attention to their needs. That’s likely something Palin, with her political and social stature, can afford both financially and emotionally. But that may not be the case for other families, who have to struggle to balance work with home and family. They simply may not be up to the challenge of raising a child with Down syndrome. Sadly, kids with developmental problems like Down syndrome are at a higher risk for being abused by parents and other caregivers.
And if you can’t provide that, what should you do? Well Parikh doesn’t say, but by labeling Palin “anti-choice” gives the reader a pretty good idea. Yes, let the mother choose, but not the child. Of course it seems compassionate to consider the poor mother and family of a Down syndrome child and what they will have to face. Smith addresses such “compassion” in an article “Waging War on the Weak” that he wrote for the Discovery Institute:
(The “new eugenics”) perceives some lives as having greater value than others, and which in some cases sees death—including active euthanasia and assisted suicide—as an appropriate “solution” to the problems of human suffering. The original eugenics movement expressed this relativistic view of human life through hate-filled rhetoric; for example, eugenicists described disabled babies like Miracle in terms that today would be considered hate speech. Thus, as recounted in Edwin Blacks’ splendid history of eugenics, War Against the Weak , Margaret Sanger took “the extreme eugenic view that human ‘weeds’ should be ‘exterminated.’”
Today’s new eugenicists are not that crass, of course. Indeed, rather than screaming hate and pejoratives from the rooftops, they instead ooze unctuous compassion as they croon about a “quality of life” ethic and preventing the weak—against whom they are secretly at war—from “suffering.” But behind the politically correct language, and indeed, hiding within the hearts of those who perceive themselves as profoundly caring, lurks the same old disdain of the helpless who offend because they remind us of our own imperfections and mortality.
This kind of thinking is subtle but deadly. Smith does a great job of exposing this kind of thinking in his blog. Are these issues important or is this just a big fuss over little things? No, not when you consider that health care is a major issue in this election.
Erik Raymond, at Irish Calvinist, has a cogent post about how politicians deliver their important messages to the masses:
Does this not sound a bit old fashioned to the sophisticated evangelical pastor? After all, we are told by many ‘experts’ today that talking to people in large chunks of time is not effective. Furthermore, it is often said to be arrogant and archaic to stand up behind a podium and have people sit down while you talk.
But what do you see at the National Conventions? A speaker, a podium, a crowd seated, an appeal to action, and even propositional statements! What’s more, we have panels of talking heads dissecting everything about the speeches with the tenacity of a hyper-calvinist in a Methodist church.
There are many times you can end up in a place and wonder how you got there. I think that kind of experience has happened for many who have grown up as Democrats but call themselves pro-life. In an essay at First Things, Suann Therese Maier lays out her journey that has led to her decision to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin this November. Of note:
I remember my father, a successful young Chicago attorney, telling me why the Democratic party was the party of “our people,” and why so many Catholics were Democrats, and why the party stood for the little guy, the poor and the defenseless. I remember listening as a young girl in our kitchen as Saul Alinsky organized my parents’ Catholic friends on racial and economic issues in our Chicago living room. And I remember the night in 1992 when Pennsylvania’s governor, Robert Casey, was denied a chance to talk against abortion at the Democratic national convention.
I will vote for Sarah Palin because Roe v. Wade is bad law, and it needs to fall. I don’t doubt the intelligence and character of men like Doug Kmiec, the younger Bob Casey, and others who sympathize with the Obama campaign. But I do doubt their judgment. At the end of the day, the Democratic party in 2008 has conceded nothing to pro-life Democrats. The fact that Sen. Obama listens respectfully to pro-lifers without calling them reactionary dunces does not constitute progress. Results and behavior are what matter. On both those counts, the party has again failed to show any real sensitivity to pro-life concerns. In that light, high profile Catholics who support Obama are simply rationalizing their surrender on Roe.
Finally, I will vote for Sarah Palin, not because I’ve left the Democratic party of my youth and young adulthood, but because that party has left me. In fact, it no longer exists. And no amount of elegant speaking, exciting choreography, and moral alibis will bring it back.
Gov. Sarah Palin's job performance as a mother has come under scrutiny.
Albert Mohler weighs in on the uncomfortable announcement that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant:
The Palin family asked to be left to deal with this privately, an understandable impulse for any family. But this isn’t just any family at the present. The moment Sen. John McCain announced Gov. Palin as his running mate, the entire Palin family became a public issue. This was amplified by the fact that the entire Palin family (except for the oldest son, Track, soon headed for deployment in Iraq) stood there before the public.
One central feature of the public introduction to the Palins was the presence of Trig, the 4-month-old baby boy who is the couple’s fifth child. Trig was diagnosed with Down syndrome prior to his birth, and the Palins translated their pro-life beliefs into a beautiful portrait of human dignity. As the couple said, they never even considered aborting the baby, but considered him a gift from God.
Now there is another gift — this time in the form of a pregnant daughter and a child conceived outside of marriage. The Palins spoke of their pride in the fact that their daughter would keep her baby and marry the father. Once again, the Palin family chooses life over death, birth over abortion, when aborting the baby would be justified by many and considered the easy way out of an embarrassing situation. Yes, that baby is a gift, as is every single living human being, born and unborn.
But the entire nation felt the awkwardness of the situation, and even part of the embarrassment. Yes, as Steve Schmidt said, “Life happens,” but not always like this. And Mark Salter is certainly correct in describing the situation as “an American family.” Still, this is not the script many families would choose — especially evangelical families who had been most encouraged by Gov. Palin’s choice as Sen. McCain’s running mate.
And, as Gov. Palin is scrutinized far and wide following this announcement, Mohler raises a concern that many of us have:
A more interesting angle on this story has to do with the question of motherhood. In this case it is the Governor as mother that is the issue, rather than the daughter. As Jodi Kantor and Rachel L. Swarns of The New York Times frame the issue:
When Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was introduced as a vice-presidential pick, she was presented as a magnet for female voters, the epitome of everymom appeal.
But since then, as mothers across the country supervise the season’s final water fights and pack book bags, some have voiced the kind of doubts that few male pundits have dared raise on television. With five children, including an infant with Down syndrome and, as the country learned Monday, a pregnant 17-year-old, Ms. Palin has set off a fierce argument among women about whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try.
It’s the Mommy Wars: Special Campaign Edition. But this time the battle lines are drawn inside out, with social conservatives, usually staunch advocates for stay-at-home motherhood, mostly defending her, while some others, including plenty of working mothers, worry that she is taking on too much.
I was asked about this on Friday in an interview with Stephanie Simon of The Wall Street Journal. As that paper reported:
So Ms. Palin’s decision to accept the nomination for vice president just four months after the birth of her disabled son gave pause to a few conservatives. But just for a moment.
“If I were her pastor, I’d be very concerned for her and her family,” Mr. Mohler said. “But it looks as though she’s found a way to integrate it all in a way that works.”
Well, I would be even more concerned now. Do I believe that a woman can serve well in the office of Vice President of the United States? Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe that a woman could serve well as President — and one day will. Portraits of significant men of history hang on the walls of my library –but so do portraits of Queen Elizabeth I of England and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women — and men — have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.
Mohler encourages us to think hard about this situation. It is definitely a knotty issue, but one we should all think about and address in our own families.
“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents.” — Sarah and Todd Palin, in a statement to the Associated Press on the disclosure that their unwed daugther, Bristol, was five months pregnant.
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” — Barack Obama, on the campaign trail in March in Pennsylvania.
OK, I’m kind of wearing out the Sarah Palin posts today, but this article in the Wall Street Journal gives a good summary of her political style while she’s been governor in Alaska:
When she ran for governor as a Republican outsider in 2006, she took on not only a sitting governor from her own party but Alaska’s Republican establishment — vowing to clean up a political system that had been rocked by an FBI corruption investigation.
After winning handily, her popularity in Alaska has soared as high as 83% as she has gone on to sack political appointees with close ties to industry lobbyists, shelved pork projects by fellow Republicans and even jumpstarted a campaign by her lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, to unseat veteran Rep. Don Young of Alaska in the Republican primary held this past Tuesday. The winner has yet to be declared in that contest, as Mr. Young currently leads by less than 200 votes and a recount seems likely.
Gov. Palin has shown similar fearlessness in going after Big Oil, whose money has long dominated the state. She appears, for example, to have forced Alaska’s dominant oil producers, ConocoPhillips and BP PLC, to finally get serious about a natural-gas pipeline — without making any tax or royalty concessions.
“People see her as the symbol of purity in an atmosphere of corruption,” says Anchorage pollster Marc Hellenthal. “She’s more like Saint Sarah.”
Rockstanding 
You must be logged in to post a comment.