This is exactly what I alluded to in the other thread about the election. This is why they selected her.
You're insinuating that she was selected because of a rhetorical question 15 years ago about how books are banned? Could it be that she was selected because she's Governor of a state that provides 20% of our domestic oil supplies, in an election year where energy is one of the biggest issues? Or how about the fact that she's picked fights with corrupt Republicans and veoted a half-billion dollars in wasteful spending, both things which jibe perfectly with McCain's campaign platform?
Sorry, but boiling down the many, many reasons he had to choose her to "it's the religious right!" is awfully simplistic. But if you carry an intense fear of religion around with you (not saying you do), you're going to see its invisible hand in everything.
The Republican party has courted the religious right since 1992 in their cynical attempt to win elections.
I hope you're not suggesting that Republicans have a monopoly on pandering. Last I checked, Democrats who stand up to unions are almost impossible to find. Democrats who stand up to the environmental lobby, and obscene policies like ethanol, are pretty rare, too.
It's not exactly a news flash that politicians sometimes look the other way regarding the fringier elements of their own party. You can dislike this (I hate it, personally), but it's not a valid reason to like one over the other, given that they both do it.
I gather having concerns about a woman who has such strong religious beliefs that she may bring those beliefs to her politics (I often like to remind the people in this country that yes, we do have a separation of church and state, really, Jefferson even talked about it) is a valid point and I have to wonder why, Yoda, that is then "peddling an agenda?"
Having concerns about how a politician's religion may effect their governing = both understandable, and important.
Taking a third-hand question that has never been corroborated or reflected in policy in any form and using it to call someone a "book burner" = ridiculous.
You don't have to defend Videodrome's outrageous spin just because you don't like Palin. You can go on disliking her without supporting these sorts of mischaracterizations. Also, if your concern is genuinely whether or not she'll bring her beliefs into her policies, then we already have a verdict. See below...
You're citing an article titled "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor" as an example of how she wants creationism taught in schools?
Check out the quotes, they're not the kind of thing you'd expect from a right-wing idealogue:
"I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be," she has been quoted as saying.
...
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," she said.
She even specifically pledged NOT to enact policies that would have it taught in schools:
Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.
This quote sums it up nicely:
Neither have Palin's socially conservative personal views on issues like abortion and gay marriage been translated into policies during her 20 months as Alaska's chief executive. It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans.
"She has basically ignored social issues, period," said Gregg Erickson, an economist and columnist for the Alaska Budget Report.
So, you're worried...why? Isn't this a perfect example of what you want: an individual recognizing the line between their personal views, and their responsibilities as a public servant? Unless you think religious people should be completely barred from holding office, I'd think you'd be thrilled with Palin's example on this issue.
And what really bothers me the most is that some people that support, say, economic republican policies, like you, are the same people that help elect people such as Sarah Palin. She has no right to bring her extreme religious views to the government. And these are extreme -- especially the banning of books and teaching the Bible in school.
She doesn't advocate the government doing either of these things. She hasn't done either of these things. You don't have to like what someone believes or does personally in order to have confidence in their ability to govern. Isn't that how most Americans feel about President Clinton's conduct? Personal disapproval, distinct from political support.
And I won't even go into how nasty her speech was. I find it fascinating how the most religious politicians are often the nastiest and most judgmental. Jesus would approve.
I don't know what Jesus thinks, personally. But this sort of response isn't really surprising. You were predisposed to dislike her, you dislike what she believes and stands for, and you didn't like the speech. Let's be honest: it'd have been shocking if you felt otherwise.
Meanwhile, people who largely agree with her seem to see it as full of valid criticism, and a necessary counterpunch to the beating she took in the media this past week. It was a combative speech, so I think it's fair to say that it was bound to magnify whatever feelings you already had about her.