An e-mail:
Kathryn,
That non-story you cited on Palin and censorship continues to misunderstand how an evangelical conservative might govern. Palin made a strong case for herself in the interview with Gibson as to how she governs as a conservative.
She has her convictions, but she also has come to recognize the limits of her power and authority. She does not indicate — and her record bears this out — that she will force a showdown on abortion as mayor or as governor, and therefore as VPOTUS or maybe POTUS. She must follow the will of the people, ultimately.
Thus, she has to work with and try to pursuade opposition to the views she holds (she referred to this as reaching out and making a culture of life). This is very sane governance. Why it is that there is an automatic assault on her because she may view a book inappropriate and not belonging in a library is beyond me. Until she actually enacts censorship, argues for it officially as governor, or breaks the law in opposition to the law, all she is doing is expressing her distaste for the book and its existence. Clearly, she shows restraint. She knows her limits as governor, and understands where her personal views end in that capacity.
I fail to understand how a contrary position is somehow a disqualification for office if the person does not abuse the office to thwart the will of the people.
I would never make a good politician because I am simply too confrontational. I know that of myself. But Palin has obviously the tempermant and patience to balance between her convictions and her responsibility to govern people with varying views.
That story serves one purpose: To generate fear that she will censor and force her views upon everyone. That simply does not seem like Sarah Palin from what her record has shown.