An unverifiable, vicious hit piece like the VF article gives Palin a great opportunity to demonstrate her character:

…impotent, limp, and gutless… (said twice)

Never mind.

At Bill Quick’s rambunctious libertarian Daily Pundit blog, commenter Haverwilde is a Ketchikan AK resident who is not impressed with Palin’s record as governor: see comment #s 3, 8, 13, and 16 over here.

Spending rose in Palin’s Alaska administrations

…Republican John McCain said during the last debate that his running mate has “cut the size of government.”

But Palin didn’t cut the size of government as mayor of Wasilla, and she hasn’t done so as Alaska’s governor, city and state budget records show. Spending in fast-growing Wasilla increased by 55% during her tenure from 1996-2002, records show. In nearly two years as governor, she has presided over a 31% spending hike by a state government that sought earmarks from Washington even as it reaped billions from higher oil prices and Palin-backed tax increases on oil companies.

Bill McAllister, a governor’s office spokesman in Alaska, said the state lived through painful budget cuts in the 1990s when low oil prices restricted revenue. “There’s an element of catch-up here,” he said.

Draw your own conclusions, my reader (if any). I’ve drawn mine.

100 men were polled.

They were asked whether they preferred

a) natural boobage

or

b) enhanced boobage.

99 men out of 100 answered “yes” (the 100th man resided in San Francisco).

You didn’t but thx for mentioning it.

Based on your response, I would expect that you would have mixed feelings about identifying with Republicans at all, however temporary the association. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you haven’t picked up Old Establishment attitudes through your education or subsequent experiences.

I vote on a case by case basis. The traditional Republican message of a free country with a strong defense has always attracted me; the Democrats’ tendency toward utopian discourse has often kindled my skepticism.

I don’t think we should hold our breath waiting for Henry Cabot Lodge.

Heh. Well put.

Otoh, I hope our situation doesn’t get desperate enough that a former one-term Congressman from the boonies is the best bet.

gs, if you remember thinking anything about Richard Nixon in 1962, you must be of a certain age.

That would be late middle age. Late middle age. 😉

You seem to have Old Establishment standards for public service.

snort When I was a refugee child, there was still an echo of the attitude that Negroes, Catholics and Jews weren’t fully American. Now I’m Old Establishment…!?

You put a high value on prudence and evince disdain for demagoguery.

In a world that is competitive when it isn’t dangerous, I want a bold President but not a reckless one.

The people who mentored me, back in the day, had a low tolerance for bullshit. I expect people who talk a big game to back it with their play.

I think you and I would get along, even though I am at least 10 years younger than you are.

I think so too. I benefited from our exchange even if no minds were changed. Maybe we’ll meet again.

gs stands for grandstanding but unfortunately for you, you’re not impressing anyone.

Try a new moniker: Babble-on.

gs, if you remember thinking anything about Richard Nixon in 1962, you must be of a certain age. You seem to have Old Establishment standards for public service. You put a high value on prudence and evince disdain for demagoguery.

I think you and I would get along, even though I am at least 10 years younger than you are.

In 2004 Illinois’ incumbent Republican senator chose not to run for reelection. Obama got the Democratic nomination via patronage. A scandal forced his opponent to withdraw. The Democrats put Obama’s teleprompter skills on the national stage at their 2004 convention. By the end of the 2008 primaries Hillary had taken Obama’s measure, but she ignored him until it was too late. McCain had edged into the lead, but lost his composure, and thereby the election IMO, when the financial crisis broke.

Even so, Obama took risks. Instead of breaking into politics at the bottom as a “community organizer”, he could have gone for a cushy career in academia, nonprofits, or business. He did not disappear into the anonymity of a leftist hack; he survived and climbed, and by hook and crook got into the Senate. When presented with the chance to challenge the 2006 “inevitable nominee”, he took the chance and motivated footsoldiers, consiglieri and techies to run the cyber-roots campaign that won him the nomination and election.

The country should have required Obama to show us a track record as a reelected IL governor before considering him for the Presidency.

Like Obama, Palin started in obscurity. Her route to the governorship was tougher than Obama’s to the Senate. Then she was put on the national stage without struggling to that level on her own. Her national takeoff was rockier than Obama’s, but like he she is willing to take risks. She has attracted a cadre of zealous loyalists that make her a presence to be reckoned with.

The country should require Palin to show us a track record as a reelected AK governor before considering her for the Presidency. Which means, in my book, that her resignation rules her out. (Though after his 1962 tantrum I was sure I’d never ever vote for Nixon…)

Otoh, on paper Texas Governor George Bush had strong qualifications to move up to the Oval Office, and IMO his Presidency was a failure. Maybe that perceived failure has helped make the voters more willing, in implicit desperation, to consider inexperienced people like Obama and Palin.

IMO Bush/Rove Republicans, given their own way, would wreck the country more slowly than Obama Democrats are doing. That’s not a reason to get fired up about the GOP. I fear that a switch from Obama to Palin would be jumping from one frying pan into another–or worse.