I thank Phil for his mention. And I also refer to Jim’s post. My fundamental argument with the mode or framework of analysis in both otherwise insightful posts, and in so much of the other pro-Palin commentary on the right these days, is the ex post facto assumption that because Palin galvanized the right, she was the only candidate who could galvanize the right. As I spent all year arguing, there were at least a handful, and up to 10 or 12, potential Veep picks who could similarly galvanize the right without turning off moderates/independents/Perotistas, and who also quite clearly passed the “ready at a moment’s notice for the Oval Office” test. Granted, my longtime pick of Chris Cox would not have worked because of the credit crisis for which he completely unfairly got the blame, but the guy who became my top choice by the summer, John Kasich, would have been almsot perfectly situated to fill all three bills. And Paul Ryan would have been able to do so, too. Likewise with Mike Pence, probably. Jim DeMint probably, too. And even a less galvanizing figure like Richard Burr would have reassured the right without turning off anybody else.
Here’s the key thing: The right was almost desperate for some signal from McCain that he would welcome them to the governing table. Conservatives would have responded positively to ANY “movement” type. Combined with the growing evidence of Obama’s radicalism, the right would have rallied behind ANY of the above-named tickets. The key was to move right without scaring the middle or turning them off. Palin is a great lady with a great future, but she wasn’t ready this time around, and it was unfair to thrust her into a position where she could get “Quayled.”
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.