Matthew Scully Wrote Sarah Palin’s Speech
I don’t know if all of you are aware that Matthew Scully, the Republican former speechwriter for George W. Bush, who resigned due to his animal protection views and went on to write the best-selling book Dominion, is the author of Sarah Palin’s VP acceptance speech. Given her track record on the environment and personal participation in hunting, this is information that should be known widely in the animal-studies community.
–from Wendy Lochner
I’m, dare I say . . . speechless.
19 Comments
Post a comment
Karen Dawn also wrote about Matthew Scully's authorship in Palin's speech.
So fear not, the word is out there and on many Animal Rights & Vegan forums as well.
There's also a small mention of Obama's record on animal issues:http://www.dawnwatch.com/Palin.htm
As for Scully – I just can't imagine what he was thinking! Although I'm an atheist, "Dominion" was the first book I read after I was confronted with the horrible reality of "factory farm". His beautiful writing appealed to my deepest sorrows. I'll always be grateful for his poignant words. But I'm so disappointed in what can only be seen as a "turncoat" deed.
The suggestion from DawnWatch is that this news ought to spawn some letters to the editors exposing Palin's anit-animal views and promoting Scully's pro-animal views.
I don't get how Scully writing Palin's speech does anything other than demonstrate how unimportant animal welfare is to him. That's the message his actions have sent me. Palin's views speak for themselves and deserved letters to the editor before Scully ever wrote a word for her. I don't get it.
But that's me.
Yes, that Palin hunts is awful. That anyone chooses to harm an innocent life is monsterous. That they do so "legally" is abominable. We admonish Palin and her ilk as often as we can.
For a moment though, (in benevolence) I'm trying to get inside Scully's thoughts. Could it be that he's found a way to negotiate through this world that's so unkind to animals, by doing what his "faith" instructs to him to do? That this might be "his way" of "functioning" in a world some of us have alienated ourselves from? After all, he didn't write a speech for her encouraging people to "hunt" or "eat meat".
Maybe sometimes there are "tests" which can show the "enemy" your moral conviction by being "strong" enough to know where and how you can best serve your cause? Maybe this is his way of saying you can't keep "us" out? I'm sure Scully was well paid thus enabeling generous contributions to the animal advocacy causes that are important to him…
Perhaps he didn't even know about "Palin"? We didn't. Maybe a vindictive "meat-hunter" person had a grudge against him, and Scully didn't know until it was too late? I'm sure he's met with much opposition from his colleagues… Maybe enough to warrant someone playing a cruel joke? I don't know, but at the very least, having "been inside his head" while reading "Dominion", I'm confident that he's not wearing leather belts or eating burgers.
If nothing else – The words "Vegan", "Dominion" and Matthew Scully's name are getting attention and press:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/washington/washington/entries/2008/09/03/palins_speechwr.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/presidentbush/2008/09/palin-bush.html
And this is quite a sarcatic opinion piece – from someone who sees (and likes) the irony of it all:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/opinionshop/detail?&entry_id=29806
I'm trying to think the best of Scully – but still, I'd love to know – his "reasons".
Nix nearly everything I just "rationalized"..
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1838808,00.html
Turns out this was a well informed decision on Scully's part – and his speech writing for Palin will probably continue. It must be Palin's strong "anti-abortion" platform that he finds common ground with(?)
Very disappointing.
Well, let's hope Mr Scully is an interesting enough character for Palin to read his book with open eyes. Being exposed to well-written opinions she probably never has seen before, may actually change her view on animals. Perhaps they've let the fox into the henhouse, if you pardon my non-vegan expression?
(I don't think it is likely, though, but at least there's a chance).
I am so sad about Scully. I have decided to send my book back to him via his publisher. Would anyone like to join me? Maybe he can let Palin borrow it.
Aja,
That's such a great idea.
Give the guy (Scully) a break. None of the candidates, or current representatives in place give a hoot about animals. O'Bama's record aint nothing to write home about either. At least, Scully reached more people than all of us could ever reach, and will with his book still on market. We should write Palin and ask her to read it, by all means.
I don't think the ideology of the far right deserves a break.
Its the animals who need a break, Mary. I don't see you are doing any good for the animals here except using your time to bash Scully and the "right". Ummm, "right", now thats a term you should explore.
Matthew Scully…he is the guy who wrote the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech that Bush recited on an aircraft carrier declaring premature victory in Iraq. And now am I to understand that Sarah Palin's "Hockey Mom" speech was written by a man from the Bush camp? Are we that naive and ignorant when the truth presents itself; to believe this woman's true character, her real persona as a fresh new "back to basics" maverick, the one who will be instrumental in cleaning up the Good Ole Boys in Washington, when if fact she is reciting Bush's speechwriters?
Is there anyone out there who can make this a bigger news item? What a sham! If you want something to poke a hole in the Sara Palin Koolaid drinker's fantasy candidate, I would take both of these speeches, put them side by side on the television screen and ask the public what they both have in common…they were both written by a Bush team member. This puts Sarah Palin directly into the Bush camp.
If you are a Bush supporter, there is probably not a conflict of interest but when you consider the strong effort that the McCain and Palin ticket has set forth to distance themselves away from Bush, then here is a blatant reminder that like Bush, the one who was fabricated as the candidate "you could have a beer with," has indeed reemerged now in the form of a "Hockey Mom" thanks to Matthew Scully.
Wonderful article, thanks for putting this together! "This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here. Keep it up!"
Hi,
I personally like your post; you have shared good insights and experiences. Keep it up.
Hi,
This is really a great stuff for sharing. Keep it up .Thanks for sharing.
Hi,
Very nice, unique and informative post. Thanks for sharing. Keep up the good work.
Matthew Scully – a conservative and animal rights advocate- embodies the future of the animal rights movement. The future of the animal rights movement does not lie with liberal, progressive politics. The progressive movement has shown that its only interest is to regulate, control, and manage the environment and nonhuman animals. Conservative values suggest a world that is independent and self-reliant, where government plays a minor role. While liberal and conservative politics have never supported animal rights, it is time to recognize that more rules and regulations do not mean the end to animal cruelty – only its regulation. Perhaps, my liberal friends should think more about the animals and rid themselves of an ideology that has become obsessed with rules and regulations. Compassion will not grow and develop in an environment that is regulated and controlled by external, governmental forces. More at swivl.org
As an apolitical abolitionist vegan, I at least partly agree with the general notion Dr. Wishnick sets forth. More specifically, I don’t think veganism and animal rights lies with *any* political ideology, especially in our era when high-profile figures on both sides of the political spectrum scoff at veganism and animal rights.
Veganism and animal rights are *only* moral issues at this time. They are issues requiring the individual to choose between right and wrong. If or when a large enough percentage of the voting population goes vegan, it will become a political issue, in addition to a moral issue, at that time.
The root of all animal cruelty is that we see nonhuman animals as commodities and “things” that we own as property instead of sentient beings who exist for their own reasons, not for ours. As long as this commodity and property paradigm toward animals exists and they are excluded from the moral community, there will be no end to the extreme cruelty and callousness that billions of them experience annually. The only way to end such a commodity and property paradigm is to go vegan. As long as a significant percentage of the human population consumes animal products, nonhuman animals will always be considered commodities and property.
Go vegan and encourage others to do the same.
Not to pick a scab, here, but is "Dominion" really useful to call an "animal rights" work? It's perhaps fine and good that Scully is a vegetarian (although, I've heard from various third-hand sources that he's everything from vegan to lacto-ovo, which is of course problematic from an AR perspective, unless your idea of AR is 'neo-welfarism' and Meatless Mondays).
Any work informed by a Christian perspective that God gave man "dominion" over animals – which is specifically the case with Scully's book, regardless of his diet, isn't a legitimate AR work. I don't think anybody should be especially surprised to see Scully aligned with Palin. Tellingly, from "Dominion":
"Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind's capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, *not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality,* but in a sense because they don't; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us."
(Emphasis mine, of course).
That Scully is a vegetarian is not in debate. That he's (perhaps) vegan is nice, but neither here nor there. Dominion, and Scully aren't part of the animal rights movement. If he's an animal protectionist – I don't think it's inaccurate, and I believe he even describes himself exactly this way – it's quite easy to rationalize sport hunting as "good" for a given species. If animals possess no inherent rights (clearly, in Scully's view, they do not), there's nothing particularly morally problematic with a "quick, clean kill." It's just factory farming that's "bad," according to Scully.
Once again, it's only *how* we use animals, not *that* we use them that's the moral issue here.
Is anyone really that surprised? Really?