Political and Spiritual Rambings Du Jour

There has been much discussion this week of Sarah Palin's interview with Charles Gibson. I read several blogs and an occasional message board. And on one certain message board, Sarah Palin was described as looking like a moose in headlights when asked if she agreed with the "Bush Doctrine." I posted these comments in response to that person's post. So, if you read that message board, you can skip this because you've already read these particular ramblings.

I was watching more news coverage of the interview last night and heard something else that was interesting to me. Carl Rove was being interviewed and he pointed out that there have been four distinct versions of "The Bush Doctrine" over the years -- all given that label by the media. It was entirely appropriate for Sarah Palin to ask what, more specifically, Gibson was speaking to. Rove said that it seemed like Gibson was asking the question with reference to Version Four of the "Bush Doctrine" and Palin was answering based on Version Two of the "Bush Doctrine." (Or vice versa, I don't remember.) But with respect to all four, there is actually no formal or written Bush Doctrine. It is simply a media label.

On both sides, the parties are looking for absolutely anything they can make a big deal out of. Including, I think, the lipstick on a pig comment. I didn't remember ever hearing that phrase. So the first time I heard Obama's words replayed on TV, I thought about Palin's speech (lipstick/hockey mom) and my thought was, "I can't BELIEVE he said that! That's disgusting!"

The reason I responded that way was because Palin's speech and the words lipstick/bulldog/hockey mom were fresh in my mind -- so my mind made the instantaneous connection. However, after I saw that it was a more commonly used phrase and even McCain had used it, I realized it was poor timing on Obama's part. But I no longer believed that he had intended to call Palin a pig. In fact, he explained on Letterman that if he had intended the comment the way some have received it, he would have been calling Palin the lipstick (not the pig).

I'm not going to vote for Obama. But I am objective enough to see that this was an opportunity for the Republicans to make a big deal out of something and that's what they did. I think even they know he wasn't calling Palin a pig. My point is, they ALL do this during a campaign. The Democrats do the same thing and then their supporters just fall right in line with it the same way. Surely we all realize that, regardless of whom we want to win.

Palin did not look like a moose in headlights in that interview. I'm sure she was nervous and tense. But she was poised and professional -- far from a moose in headlights. I can't imagine being under that kind of pressure not to make a single mistake and having the eyes of millions scrutinizing every expression and every word for the purpose of trying to find something (anything) to focus negative attention on.

But that's what she signed on for and, so far, it seems to me that she's up for the task. I'm sure by the time they are sworn in (if they are), she will be even more prepared than she is today.

I would love to see her be the first woman vice-president. Because, of all the women in politics I've seen thus far, I feel that she represents me the best. And isn't that what government is about? Isn't that why we have elections? Because we all want someone in leadership who understands and represents US?

Barack Obama does not represent me. I've been listening lately to a lot of his references to the Bible (mocking the scriptures publicly) and the way he defines our nation. Over 70% (I think the statistic is 77%) of our population considers themselves Christian. But Obama claims we are NOT a Christian nation. We are a Budhist nation and a Hindu nation and a Muslim nation and even a nation of non-belief. If you took his words literally, you would believe that all of those faiths (or lack thereof) are equally represnted statistically within our borders. But that is not true. It may be HIS truth, but it's not THE truth.

No, he does not represent my views at all. That doesn't make him a bad man necessarily. And I don't buy into every email I read. He just isn't my choice. You can be for the person who best represents your views without trying to make a caricature of the other choice.

Whomever wins the election will be the indicator of whether I'm in the majority or the minority. But, more importantly, I believe God will select the man who will accomplish His purposes in the earth. So if Obama IS elected, I will be able to accept that just fine since I rest in the sovereignty of God in all these matters.

The media has also tried to alarm voters by playing a portion of Sarah Palin expressing herself in a church setting. Gibson questioned her about a comment she made with regard to God's will and the war. But the media had played her comments out of context. When the comments were aired in their entirety, it was very clear that she was saying we should pray that we would be in God's will in these matters. She wasn't claiming the war was God's will. She was expressing her desire to be doing God's will and emphasizing the importance of our prayers to that end. Big difference.

However, whether a candidate desires/prays to be led by God or not, God is still in control. Even if those words are never spoken by a candidate or political leader, there is still a divine plan just the same, and God's purposes will be accomplished in the earth. It doesn't matter who believes it or who doesn't.

In the finality of things, EVERY knee will bow and EVERY eye will behold Him. And when you know that, you can have peace in any situation.