What do you think is the big deal about Sarah Palin? She is not the first to break campaign promises. Republicans and Democrats have shared that "distinction" for decades – but there has not been this level of antagonism especially about a non-candidate as there has been for her – from newspaper articles, to magazine covers to TV shows. I wonder if it makes for sales or something. As to an index, I understand there are books out there by well liked and prominent people who also do not have indexs.
As for campaign promises I am not sure if you mean promises when she was mayor and governor in Alaska, or promises made when she and Senator McCain ran for office. If it is the second point, it would have never happened since they both lost. If it was as Mayor and Governor – she was apparently well received by both places – and no suits against her have prevailed to my knowledge. Also, there was not much available against her when she ran for VP a year ago. Let the court of public opinion deal with her just like it should with any politician. She has not been a candidate for 11 months and the media is still circling around her. I wonder what they are afraid of?
First, my point was that campaign promises are not the problem with her lying; rather, she lies about matters of fact. She tells stories about her own life, and then changes the story up when it suits her. She makes claims of opinion about factual events that she waffles on later (during the campaign, she wanted to stay in Michigan; now, in her book, she claims she had wanted to leave all along). She disputes matters of truth and fact, especially on policy and historical events. Here is a lie about a provable fact:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-odd-lies-17.htmlPalin lied when she told voters she improvised her convention speech when her teleprompter stopped working properly; in fact, all reports showed that the machine had functioned perfectly and that her speech had closely followed the script.
Does a person who so readily lies about observable fact to suit her own image need to be anywhere close to a governmental office, let alone the public, re-energizing face of an entire political party?
Now, moving on to "why care about Palin?"
She has not been a candidate for 11 months and the media is still circling around her. I wonder what they are afraid of?
Should I attempt to seize the moment and "once in a lifetime" opportunity?
If anything, Palin re-energized the republican party
You answered your own question. The media is not out to "get" Palin, which is the spin on the situation by conservative pundits. The fact is that a great number of Republicans are very strong fans of Sarah Palin and react strongly to events, news, and interviews about or with her. You are the customer who wanted to take the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, no? You and the Republican party are the ones who generate the news by encircling Palin with popularity.
It is also true that a lot of the coverage about Sarah Palin is negative. This is not because the media is out to "get" Palin. This is because of Sarah Palin's own controversial views and numerous mistakes. Over the last campaign, these items were reported on (and they are the tip of the iceberg):
- Sarah Palin claimed that she reads "all newspapers" in the Couric interview. The media was not out to "get" Palin for this; she voluntarily made this incredibly stupid statement.
- Sarah Palin insinuated that Barack Obama is an Islamic terrorist at a rally.
- Sarah Palin declined to have a shouter removed at a rally when the shouter yelled "nigger" in reference to Obama.
- Sarah Palin said she can see Russia from her house. Regardless of her intent to say that Alaska is close to Russia, she phrased it this way. This is a childlike, ignorant statement.
- Sarah Palin was found guilty of an ethics violation by a panel of both Republicans and Democrats in Alaka. (She eventually solicited another panel's review, which, as expected, found her innocent, as she had handpicked the new panel.)
- Sarah Palin quoted to the media that she never supported the "Bridge to Nowhere", despite being interviewed several times during her gubernatorial campaign and expressing support for it, while also making it part of her running platform.
- Her daughter had an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Again, the media was not out to "get" her. She is a conservative candidate, meaning she runs on a platform of religious morality. Out-of-wedlock pregnancy is an egregious violation of religious morality.
- Sarah Palin hunts wildlife from the vantage of a helicopter.
- It was revealed that Sarah Palin resigned from the position of governor 18 months early.
- Sarah Palin denied access to medical records in reference to her last pregnancy, which she probably didn't actually have. This is poor form for a political candidate, who is expected to make tax and medical records available.
As should be obvious, Sarah Palin has several extreme views, and has made numerous blunders, errors, and lies. A person running for the Vice Presidency and seen as the public face of the Republican party
needs to be scrutinized. This is a person who commands power. They need to be criticized, dissected, and understood; these are democratic checks on power. To express an informed vote for a politican, a citizen needs to know their policies and their general intelligence and personality. But under scrutiny, Palin lied, misled, incited hatred, and revealed extreme views and an ignorance of policy. Since then, she has continued this behavior. She completely fabricated the "death panel" claim about health care, and has been voicing her opinion on other issues steadily. "Going Rogue" only continues this trend, as she's now taken to criticizing the McCain campaign.
As long as Sarah Palin energizes the Republicans and is seen as a public face and potential candidate of the Republican party, she will be in the media spotlight.
This is democracy. And as long as she continues lying, misleading, and revealing ignorant, extreme views, she will be criticized. (And conservatives will still whine that it's unwarranted criticism.)
As for the question on fundamentalism against an honest question: can you say direct who you mean when you use the term “African man who condemned women to violently die for witchcraft?” Was it her pastor? As to the 4,000 BC thing – there are plenty of Christians who take a scientific view of the earth’s age.
Sarah Palin visted the Wasilla Assembly of God in late 2005. The pastor in attendance was Thomas Muthee, a bishop from Kenya. Muthee had once attacked a woman he felt was a "witch", which happens in some African Christianism (leading to rape, murder, etc. of the "witches"—more on this at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft#Africa). This account of Palin's events comes from his Wikipedia page, which is well-cited with several news stories:
Muthee and his wife returned home to Kenya from Scotland, where he had finished his graduate studies, in 1988.[3] They soon felt that they were "called by God to Kiambu" and after six months of prayer, research, and "spiritual mapping," they came to believe that a woman known as "Mama Jane" was a witch, and thereby caused traffic fatalities, traffic accidents, crime, and spiritual oppression in the area. [2][6] Muthee alleged that "top government and business leaders [were] afraid to do anything without her approval," that at least one person per month would die in a car accident in front of her "divination house"[3] and that she weekly "went to Thomas' church site, performed magic, and cast her spells and curses."[5] Muthee publicly declared, “Mama Jane either gets saved and serves the Lord, or she leaves town! There is no longer room in Kiambu for both of us!"[5] Soon after his followers began to pray that God would either save or oust Mama Jane, three young people died in another apparent accident in front of Mama Jane's house, according to Muthee's account.[3] Angry townsfolk wanted to stone Mama Jane in retaliation for the traffic accidents. When the police entered Mama Jane's home to intervene, they were allegedly startled by what they believed to be a demon and shot her pet python to death.[3][6] Mama Jane was then questioned by police, after which she left town, according to some accounts.[3]
Muthee has frequently referred to the Mama Jane event as an example of successful “spiritual mapping," which includes locating specific witches by research and prayer,[7] and spiritual warfare, claiming that crime and traffic accidents were reduced as a result of chasing Mama Jane out of town.[2][5][6] Others have referred to the event as an example of the power of prayer.[8][9] The event was depicted in two videos by George Otis, Jr.,[10][11] in which Muthee claimed that the crime and traffic accident rate in Kiambu dropped drastically after Mama Jane left, and that he is responsible for positive social change in the town.[2][5][12]
Workgroup "Back to the Bible," headed by Pastor Rien van de Kraats of Kamperland, Netherlands, found no police reports or any other sources that backed up Muthee’s claims.[13] Investigators have asserted that "Mama Jane" is Jane Njenga, a local pastor who never left Kiambu.[14]
This is extremism, fear-mongering, and religious insanity. If he did fabricate the event, then he is also a liar. It is troublesome that Sarah Palin would willingly attend a church where this man comes to speak, let alone receive a "blessing" from him.
The fact that other Christians do share a "scientific view" is firstly wrong, and secondly irrelevant. It's wrong because science and faith are irreconcilable. A person cannot embrace science while circumventing the scientific method to assume that deities and the supernatural exist. It is irrelevant because Sarah Palin
does not have a "scientific view", and she is the one under scrutiny. Does the President of the United States need to be rooted in science? Does the President need to be education-positive? Does the President need to have a firm grounding in reality and natural phenomena? Does the public face of an entire political party need these things?
That someone believes the earth is only 6,000 years old is indicative of a deep ignorance and denial of reality. Leaders, on the other hand, must be intelligent and aware to make informed decisions, and the President must also be wise in terms of American policy. A woman who is a Christian fundamentalist, touts foreign policy experience despite not owning a passport until she was in her 40s, consistently lies about factual events in her personal life and abroad, and has demonstrated a savage ignorance and disinterest in substantive policy (well demonstrated during the debates and her writings) cannot be said to be informed, intelligent, or qualified to by President or lead a political party.