I told Ed this morning that the only way we’re going to drum up even moderate interest in the site this week is to bait readers with posts about Palin or atheism.
I guess I’ll start looking for atheism news after this.
Who cares if Palin was qualified to be President? She was running with John McCain! There was no chance that ticket was going to place her anywhere near the presidency. In fact, I can’t think of a better place to put someone you wanted to keep away from the White House than on a ticket with McCain.
Palin was a kick in the pants, she energized conservatives, and she made liberal heads explode. Other than his brave military service, introducing Sarah Palin to Americans is the greatest thing John McCain ever did for his country.
But unless Palin is going to be the perpetual running mate of “moderate” Republicans who need conservative bona fides, she will need to become wiser and better read. Even Reagan didn’t run for President in his 40s.
That’s Coulter writing, although if I didn’t know it, I could have guessed: No one else except Limbaugh has enough conservative goodwill banked to escape a treason charge for suggesting that Sarahcuda isn’t perfectly well read already. In fact, she suggests Palin spend the next decade honing her chops as governor instead of challenging The One. A fine idea — in fact, a majority of HA readers agree that she should wait until 2016 — but that would put her on a collision course with Jindal, and I’m far from convinced that match-up favors her.
HE interviewed Palin for the occasion, too. A snippet:
GIZZI: For my birthday this year, friends gave me the new biography of Andrew Jackson [American Lion, by Jon Meacham]. One of the passages that reminded me of you is when the author is explaining how vilified Jackson was and says, ‘He was the first President to come from the common people, not from an educated elite, and he never ceased to see himself as their champion.’ Is that something you can identify with and do you think the fact you had a similar background to Jackson’s was a reason for some of the criticism you received from some of the punditocracy and the media in general?
PALIN: Maybe initially it is a hindrance for someone starting out. But once the electorate knows what that candidate’s convictions are and positions are, I don’t think that matters. You just prefaced your question with the fact that I didn’t come from that ‘stock’. I got my education from the University of Idaho because that’s what I could afford. It was the least-expensive school that offered the programs I knew would benefit me in my future. My Dad was a school teacher and had four kids in college at about the same time. It didn’t occur to me to ask my parents to pay for my college education. We all worked through school and paid for schools that we could afford. I still got a great education. No, I don’t come from the self-proclaimed ‘movers and shakers’ group and that’s fine with me. It’s caused me, or rather, allowed me, to work harder and pulled myself up by my bootstraps without anyone else helping me. I think it allows me to be in touch with the vast majority of Americans who are in the same position that I am. That is desiring government to be on our side and not against us. And that means, in a lot of ways, for government to get out of the way to allow our families and our businesses to keep more of what they produce, to meet our own priorities.
Elsewhere in the interview, contra the boldface part, she explains her initial support for TARP — which of course my boss vehemently opposed from day one, just like she’s always vehemently opposed the sort of path to citizenship for lawbreakers that Palin is on record as supporting. Exit question one: If Palin’s the new gold standard for conservatism, what’s Michelle? Diamond/platinum? Exit question two: Why is it that McCain’s support for TARP “appalled” Joe the Plumber and helped convince him that Maverick was but the lesser of two evils, whereas Palin’s “absolutely the real deal” notwithstanding her support for the very same policy?