"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent. As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."
--John Feehery, a Republican strategist.
This quote struck me for a few reasons. First, it validates what I've been saying that Palin has an impenetrable coat of Christian Teflon. The more she's attacked -- a.k.a. persecuted -- the more popular she'll be.
Second, the "little facts" he referred to related to whether she actually opposed the Bridge to Nowhere and earmarks, as they' campaign has repeatedly declared. So what she actually did is irrelevant compared to her being "new," "popular" and an "insurgent."
He may be right in political terms but this strikes me as the ultimate in moral relativism. There's no such thing as truth or untruth -- or at least it doesn't really matter. What matters instead is energy, emotion, and which team your on.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
There is no moral relativism to the Republican dishonesty and Christians who approve of that dishonesty. Faith has plenty of room for interpretation, facts don't.
This wholesale dishonesty is not sustainable and the Republicans like Feehery can joke about it, but basically these lies are another attempt to screw the American people.
The cult of celebrity rules in America. We love celebrities, even when they do terrible things, because their "just special" and live on a different plane than we do. They're what most of us aspire to be.
Barack Obama isn't the most accomplished Democrat in that party. He's the candidate for President because he has that intangible star quality.
It was immediately obvious to everyone that Sarah Palin has that same quality. Her popularity exploded out of nothing, because everybody could sense she had that special celebrity thing going. And, everybody knows that celebrities are judged by different standards than mere politicians.
The current campaign is a logical outgrowth of our burgeoning cult of celebrity.
Reddopto makes a very important point. A related point: the celebrity culture rests as much on personality, or what they represent, as it does their actual talents.
In fairness to Obama and Palin, they have a few things going for them beyond mere celebrity. Obama was against the war and had a clear anti-war message. We forget that that's how he distinguished himself from the pack initially. That's substantive.
Palin has gone beyond celebrity less because of her views than because her life story represents something inspiring to many people. Most people know virtually nothing about her actual governing philosophy (and much of what they do know is wrong) but it's not relevant because that's not why Americans fell in love with her. If she were the presidential candidate, this would not be sufficient. But as a VP, it may well be enough
I did not write the post just previous to this post. Maybe signing my nom de plume was inadvertent. But, maybe it was it was a way to discredit my actual posts. I noticed they used a capital R. Please use another handle.
I am so disheartened by all of this...it should matter, it must matter. Our witness should be everything. No wonder the church is not growing, you can join a book club for fellowship. I listened to Barrack Obama ask a conservative interviewer something to the effect, “Why wouldn’t you who have been blessed with so much be willing to share, just a little more with those who don’t have enough.” The commentator dodged the issue, but clearly it is the issue!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.