In Defense of Sarah Palin

I have had more than one conversation with liberal friends and acquaintances in which my counterparts have told me that Sarah Palin was the biggest mistake that John McCain made. Most of those folks are not far left but rather merely liberal. As such, while they would be natural opponents of Palin, they wouldn't necessarily have such a visceral reaction.

I have heard these folks describe her using such words as stupid, uncultured, a zealot, and utterly unprepared. They have pointed to several bad performances in interviews, her sharpened and vulgar attacks on Obama (palling around with terrorists is the one most mentioned), and what they view as out of the mainstream beliefs.

These friends and colleagues laugh when I suggest that Palin is the future of the Republican party and that I believe she will be our candidate in 2012 (if not then certainly in 2016).

There are several things that need to be made clear about Palin. First, I believe that the McCain campaign mishandled Palin in a nearly politically criminal manner. The problme was NOT that she had a couple of bad interviews. Every politician since the beginning of time has bad interviews. Every politicians says dumb things in interviews. So what. The problem is that they left the Couric/Gibson interview hanging without allowing her to do more to overcome how poorly she had done. The MSM did a gotcha game as they should have expected. So what. Why wasn't she all over television so that these gotcha moments could be countered with other interviews.

The reality is that Sarah Palin viewed by some as some sort of imbecile because she didn't identify what Charlie Gibson meant by the "Bush Doctrine", couldn't name three Supreme Court cases off the top of her head, and couldn't recite McCain's legislative work on regulation. So what. This would have been nothing more than a blip had she become a fixture all over television, radio and the internet. The McCain campaign had found their secret weapon, Sarah Palin. She was interesting, intriguing, and people were drawn to her. Then, she had a couple of bad interviews and they hid her away so that no one could get to her. Why? No one will be flawless each and everytime they are in front of a camera. The campaign should have let her make mistakes but move onto the next interview. Instead, they allowed two bad interviews to define her.

Second, as the Vice Presidential candidate, she is the attack dog. Of course, she will hit Obama hard. That's her role. The fact that some find her attacks offensive and over the top is a sign that she is managing her role as she is supposed to do. Of course, liberals find her characterization of the relationship between Obama and Ayers "palling around" offensive. It's a sharp attack, and supporters aren't going to like it. If she had treated Obama with kid gloves, liberals would likely have found her "charming". They still wouldn't have voted for her but she would have been charming. That, there is a visceral reaction to her is a sign that her attacks are as sharp as they should be.

Third, the MSM has done everything they can to demonize her. The level of hate and venom to the Governor is unprecedented when directed at the Vice Presidential candidate. Everyone from feminists, gun control advocates, to late night comedians have taken an extraordinary amount of pot shots at her. If you get the bulk of your news from MSM, then no doubt you will find Governor Palin some sort of a stooge. Of course, we all need to keep in mind that most of the people taking pot shots at her are political opponents. Some have made hay of the likes of Kathleen Parker and David Frum, both conservative pundits, that have come out against Palin. Yet, Palin is still almost universally adored in the Conservative movement. You are never going to please everybody, and Obama has plenty of detractors on the left. It's just that the media, in love with Obama, pretends they aren't there.

The same things that first drew Conservatives to Palin are still there. She is still quite charismatic. She still has about an 80% approval rating in Alaska. This didn't happen by accident and it didn't happen because she governed like some extremist. Often in debating said liberals, they downplay her accomplishments in Alaska by saying the state is small. It's as though cutting taxes, reducing government, and fighting corruption is somehow easier in a small state than somewhere else. I'm always reminded of a friend of mine who attempted to change cable companies in his condo. He joined the seven member cable committee. He went to every meeting including through the months of January-April, when he an accountant was in the middle of tax season. Try as he might he couldn't get the rest of the group to see that the cable company, RCN, wasn't the best choice. The point of the story is that change is hard anywhere: D.C., Juneau, or on the condo cable committee. The idea that Palin's accomplishments are inconsequential because they were done in Alaska is the height of elitism.

She is still the same infinitely fascinating hockey mom, turned PTA mom, turned city coucil woman, turned mayor, turned whistleblower, turned Governor who hunts, fishes, and once won a state championship in basketball on a bad ankle.

Make no mistake. Sarah Palin is going to be a political force for years to come. She has arrived and she isn't going anywhere, win or lose tomorrow. Like any other political force, she will continue to irk her opponents for years to come. Just ask Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Whatever mistakes the McCain campaign has made one of them was NOT choosing Sarah Palin as the VP pick.