Home > Mallinak, Mix 'n Match > Yes to McCain is Yes to Palin

Yes to McCain is Yes to Palin

October 12, 2008

In my last post, I mentioned that if I voted for McCain at all, it would only be because I support Palin.  For that matter, if I could simply skip straight to Sarah Palin, I would.  And that is a part of what bothers me about this election… Never before have I voted for a man in hopes that he would not finish his term.

It must have been last week that Rush Limbaugh ended his show by saying, “we have three hundred million people in this country, and the best two we could come up with for President are John McCain and Barak Obama?”

I have to agree.  This may be one of the most hotly contested Presidential elections since… well, since the last two anyways.  But I think the reason it is so has more to do with Barak Hussein Obama than with John “The Maverick” McCain.  Obama supporters are in a frenzy.  Chris Matthews gets a chill up his leg when he hears Obama speak.  And on the other hand, the NObama people get a chill down their spine when they think about the possibility of saying “President Obama” for the next four years.  The frenzy is on both sides of Obama… and McCain is merely an accessory.

With that in mind then, I have just a few random thoughts to put up on the blog for you to kick around in the comments thread.  These thoughts are truly random in a very random sense of the word.  No particular meaning should be attached to the chosen order .

First, if we vote for McCain, we are voting for Sarah Palin to rule over us.

Secondly, that (in my opinion) is not such a bad thing, for several reasons.  I do not believe that a woman should rule over us, and I believe what the Bible says about such a case as that — in other words, that it is a sign of chastisement on us as a people.  But with that in mind, I am not at all surprised that it has come to this, only that it has taken so long for it to come to this.  Nor do I believe that this chastisement necessarily means that God is casting us aside.  As a matter of fact, in this case, I can definitely see the possibility that this chastisement is meant to correct us in order to bless us.  Palin is a true conservative — I don’t believe that the analogies of Palin as “Reagan in a skirt” are that far off — and takes a strong stance on abortion.  And, as a woman, Palin has an opportunity to attack abortion in a way that no man could do it in this age of “sensitivity.”  I realize that we have good reasons for remaining pessimistic about the possibility of putting an end to abortion in the next four years.  But that should not keep us from trying.  It would not be the first time that God has used chastisement in order to bless.  Palin strikes you as an everyday woman: down to earth, middle class, “you betcha.”  If you watched her debate with Joe Biden, you couldn’t help but feel that this was a friend.  Could she be a bit too innocent for the Washington shenanig-meisters?  Perhaps.  One certainly has cause to fear that the wolves might devour her once she gets there.  But, one might have thought the same of “Jael with the nail.”

Thirdly, if I were given the opportunity to choose my chastisement (as David did), I would prefer the chastisement of a woman ruling over me to the chastisement of Obama ruling over me.  In following Rome’s path to destruction, I prefer Constantine to Nero.  Obama is a truly dangerous man (I’ll get to that in a minute).  But Sarah Palin is dangerous in a different way – and to a different set of people (namely, the American feminist).

Fourthly, those who think that Sarah Palin is incompetent to perform the duties of Vice President should pay more attention.  Actually, you should pay less attention to the Agents of Propaganda (a.k.a the News Media), and more attention to what is actually happening here.  Consider:  when McCain chose Palin to be his running mate, she was virtually unknown.  The media immediately sent a crew to dig up all the dirt that could be found on Sarah Palin.  And, not surprisingly, she got some dirt on her.  Then, for the next couple of weeks, we were treated to an avalanche of stories about all the dirt on Palin, until the media finally figured out that this strategy was backfiring, and that support for Sarah Palin increased in proportion with the number of hit pieces on her.  So, the media backed off.  They left her alone.  They said nothing about her.  For a couple of weeks.  Then, THAT became the story… that nothing is being said about her.  That obviously meant that she’s not doing anything, she’s not as popular as she was, people are cooling in their ardour for Sarah Palin.

This brings us to my fifth point — that we really have come to the place where image is everything, where propaganda matters, where propaganda trumps substance, and where invented ethos overrides character.  Sarah Palin is a textbook illustration of this.  Most of what we know of Sarah Palin we know from her reputation in Alaska (which is, by the way, very good), and from our Agents of Propaganda, the U.S. News Media.  In her case, it is a battle between situated ethos (her reputation that results from her character), and invented ethos (her image as formed by the Creators of Image).  In time, character always impacts reputation.  But in Sarah Palin’s case, there is not time enough for her true character to shine through.  The media has taken full advantage of this, and thus Sarah Palin has been painted as a bimbo.  That’s too bad.  But the fault lies at our door, when we allow the media to shape our opinions and to invent images for the main players in our political games.

And speaking of invented images, my sixth point has to do with Obama.  In the era of image politics, Obama is the culmination of years of practice at carefully manufacturing the right Suit and Haircut to be President.  The American people really don’t know him.  Not that they care.  He looks good, he sounds good.  And when he has the right tools (think teleprompter), he actually sounds like he believes what he is saying.  But Obama’s character will shine through his reputation as well.  As long as this Presidential season has been, it has not been long enough for Obama’s character to overcome his reputation.  It will, though.

But then, I have yet another thought here.  Consider it my seventh point.  Obama reminds me more of a manikin in a suit than he does a despot.  Perhaps this is the danger of an Obama presidency.  We are not really sure if Obama is the dangerous one, or if the people who manipulate Obama are the dangerous ones.  I could be all wrong on this, but Obama seems to me to be like a puppet on a string.  He dances skillfully, no doubt, but we are left to wonder if we should be impressed with him or with the people pulling his strings.  Watching him reminds me of watching one of those ventriloquist acts with a very accomplished ventriloquist.  I can’t tell if that really is his voice, or if someone else is doing the talking.

And that, in my opinion, is the real danger of an Obama presidency.  One gets the eerie feeling that Obama is not his own man.  Someone owns him.  Should he win the presidency, someone else will run him.  We have always understood the smoke-filled rooms where deals are made.  But we have to think that an Obama presidency would be exactly that.

And that is why, all things being equal, my talk of voting third party is just that — talk.  I’m thinking out loud.  When it comes time to vote, I don’t want Obama in the White House.  Not that I think Obama would be so dangerous by himself.  Get him away from his handlers and his teleprompters, and he is LESS than ordinary.  Rather, it is that I think that Obama’s handlers are extraordinarily dangerous.

I think I’ll vote Palin.

  1. J Warren
    October 13, 2008 at 7:21 am

    For the all important voter, their choices are really limited this election cycle. No matter who wins, there will be a woman occupying one of the executive branch offices. The only thing different will be the ratio. 50/50 or 100 percent. McCain Palin 50/50.

  2. Don Heinz
    October 14, 2008 at 9:20 am

    If Obama wins, I’ll bet ya Hillary gets Secretary of State.

  3. October 15, 2008 at 6:16 am

    Your third point was very interesting, and I had not traveled down that line of reasoning until now.

  4. October 15, 2008 at 11:43 am

    I am going to be quite honest here (here currently being in Terre Haute candy selling, and not sure when I will be able to to view any possible responses). I am concern with the Flip Flop of pastors, especially IFB Pastor’s that were so dead set against a woman president when Hillary was running. They through out a million and a half Bible verses, made several legitamate arguments why there she never be a female president.

    Now I know Hillary views and sickening, here stance is wrong and thus. But that was not the brunt of the refusal to accept her nomination. It was because she was a women, point blank. That was the hole basis of their argument.

    You know what, I accepted it. I have no fault with that. I think their right, and think it is wrong for a women to be president, or even vice president. Our men should pick up the gauntlet, and fight, defend and lead our country.

    They flip flop comes when these same pastor’s that flat out refused to accept a female president, has now openly embraced the idea of Sarah Palin being our next VP. Last time I looked she is a woman, wife and mother. Didn’t she just have a baby last Spring? They love her because she is conservavtive. She has good values, and stances. She cleaned up Alaska, a manly, man’s country. She is our next Deborah. EWRAH!!!!

    Well if it was wrong to begin with, why is it right now, when we are getting what we want?
    Just my 2cents and I am sure I will get busted for it.

  5. Knowledge Son
    October 17, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Very silly article and rationale, are you “Joe the Plummer”

  6. October 20, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    Can Two Walk Together Without Agreement?

    Sarah Palin’s Answers: Very Troubling

  7. October 20, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    I mean t to link to these articles…




    Obviously since Chuck himself is a candidate there is a sort of vested interest, but nonetheless his facts are true. I’m sorry you have compromised, sir.

  8. October 21, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    The Bible teaches a country is being chastised or judged by God when women or children lead – so either way you look at it, voting her in (directly or indirectly) would not be a good thing. Also, she may be conservative in some ways – but why are supposedly IFB’s endorsing her? She is not a Baptist, she is a charismatic.

    Granted, she might be better than the alternative – but it still shows the US is in trouble if McCain gets in and she becomes the Vice President.

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: