Jeff beats the liberal media’s incredible Palingate self-beclowning about the (pointy) head and (sloped) shoulders. Then he really takes off and soars.
Now, as most of you know, I’m not particularly religious. In fact, I’m agnostic — though I do believe in a higher power, or at least in the idea of a higher power, as a way to establish the provenance of natural rights (however you decide to name it). And here’s what I see in this letter: An optimism based in faith; a can-do spirit that used to be the hallmark of American individualism; a humility before a power Palin clearly sees as greater than herself — the power from which we derive our natural rights; a willingness to embrace difficult challenges; a love of family, and a recognition that because of the strength of that family, what at first appear to be challenges will, in time, reveal themselves as blessings…
– This is the Sarah Palin that is revealed here — far from the scheming, manipulative bitch willing to squeeze a slack-jawed political prop from her cooter (or pretend to do so, so that she can cover up that the child is not hers but rather is the illicit love child of her daughter and husband), what resolves here is a portrait of a hard-working, politically savvy governor who is vindicated in nearly every instance from the libels created to diminish her.
I wanted to just swipe the whole thing; it’s just that good. But since I’ve been fooling around with a sort of longish post of my own on a similar theme, and don’t wish to just lift the whole thing and leave you with no reason to go on over and read all of Jeff’s excellent piece, I’ll content myself with this other crucial bit:
I noted this before, but let me note it again: the antidote to Carter was not Howard Baker or George HW Bush. We’re at the brink. And if we can’t articulate the enormous CHASM that separates classical liberal and legal conservative principles from those on witness by the democratic socialists in power — who are actively working to increase government’s size and the people’s dependence on it, intentionally sabotaging energy production and private sector job growth while putting in place the bureaucratic structure to control us through our healthcare decisions and through regulations on the very exhalation that comes from our bodies, or the dust we kick up when we walk — we have lost our country anyway, and it’s damn certain that Mitt Romney and his carbon emission-sensitivity or his ethanol panders isn’t going to do dick structurally to help us get it back. At best he’s a kind of cultural procrastination. And at worst, he comes — like George Bush did in his two terms — to count as the benchmark of right-wing extremism, against which the next leftist candidate positions himself.
Aside from the basic problem with the “unelectable” argument — which is that you can’t know who’s “electable” before a single vote has been cast, unless you’re willing to put way too much faith in the sort of cooked polls that many of the same people usually (and rightly) scoff at for their manipulative bias, that is — hammering away at Palin, Bachmann, or anybody else as if they were somehow undermining conservatism by daring to run as actual conservatives ensures that the long slide leftwards continues, with no hope of a return to sanity either immediately or in the future. It concedes the game to the Leftists, who will be only too happy to choose our candidates for us before we even leave the locker room.
People who truly wish to see this nation turned around and put back on the Constitutionally-correct path really ought to stop insisting that actual conservatives have some sort of duty to abandon their principles for the sake of an unproven and unprovable “electability,” or just stay out of the fray altogether. It’s playing right into the hands of both the Left and the business-as-usual hacks, and it’s never going to get us anything but more of the same thing that got us into this mess in the first place.
Update! The Prof is right:
I agree that Palin has been unfairly but extensively damaged, but that does not mean she should not run. Pre-selecting our candidates based upon what the mainstream media does is a huge mistake, because whoever the nominee is, that person will be savaged by the mainstream media and entertainment industry beyond comprehension. Palin simply has been the test case. Perceived electability now says little about actual electability once the nominee becomes the focus of the pro-Obama media.
Let anyone who wants to run run, and let the voters sort it out in the primaries. If Palin is unelectable in a general election, that will be an argument against nominating her; just as it is an argument against certain other candidates.
The primaries will bring out the best or the worst in the candidates, and candidates either will overcome voter concerns about electability, or the candidates will not succeed. Let the voters decide, not the editors of The Daily Caller or National Review or even tiny inconsequential Legal Insurrection.
Bingo. Has anybody considered that the blue-on-blue damage inflicted by these doomsayers might actually contribute to a perception of unelectability as well, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? Jacobson wraps it up:
I trust the voters. It’s too bad some very vocal Republicans do not.
Yep. Kinda hard to trust them sometimes, honestly, especially in the sort of rigged system ours has slowly devolved into. But in the end, it’s all we got. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let a pack of liberal “journalists” and GOP insiders tell me who has any business even running in the first place, and who ought to fall on their swords and give up the fight “for the good of the party.” Hell with that; ever notice how they always insist it’s the strongest, most committed and principled fighters on our side who need to hang it up? Odd, that.