Well, I think it’s safe to say contingent of people pleasantly surprised by Sarah Palin’s abilities has grown by at least two since her appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this week. First Lorne Michaels:
He even goes on to sympathize with her rapid and rough introduction to the nation, and applaud her convention speech:
Second, Tina Fey’s comment, which I confess to reading on a celebrity gossip blog, but will oblige you with a link to an actual news source:
All right, so that comment isn’t as dignified as the one from Michaels, but it does come from Palin’s tormenter-in-chief, and a woman who would have much to gain in her political circles for slamming Sarah publicly. Such compliments from those who would gladly ridicule her, on or off the set, illustrate her power as a performer and a political figure moving forward. It’s something the Republican Party and conservatism must figure out how to harness, no matter what happens November 4. As Fred Barnes puts it, in this week’s print edition:
Her conservatism is more instinctive…Now, despite her political talent, Palin’s future is unclear. If McCain wins the election, that will simplify her political life. She’ll be America’s first female vice president and the most prominent national leader aside from McCain. And she’ll be heir apparent to President McCain. If McCain loses, she’ll still be governor of Alaska. In fact, she’ll be the state’s most famous governor ever and its first political celebrity. That won’t be enough to make her an influential player in national affairs. Palin, by the way, is unsure about her ultimate role in national politics even if McCain wins, but it’s bound to be more complicated if he loses… Whether they know it or not, Republicans have a huge stake in Palin. If, after the election, they let her slip into political obscurity, they’ll be making a tragic mistake. Palin continues to brush off speculation about 2012, preferring to focus on the task at hand, but the fact remains that the party and the movement cannot afford to mishandle a political asset like Palin in the coming months and years. In some ways, she needs seasoning, but her preternatural ability to connect with regular people while performing like anything but cannot be taught to someone who simply doesn’t have it, even if he has read the requisite briefing papers:
Palin, whether it happens this cycle or not, is the kind of figure who can inspire faith in a political leader, rebuild a Republican brand smarting after eight rough years, put a friendly face on fiscal conservatism and a soft edge on social conservatism. Cast as a new leader of a philosophical movement, I’d argue that she’s easily more reliably conservative in word and deed than Bush was before he took office under the auspices of “compassionate conservatism.” There are some, notable conservative commentators among them, who weigh those talents as insufficient balance for her short-comings:
The new conservative movement will be facing a political opponent that will reveal itself soon to be both multiculturalist and Eurosocialist. We will be engaged in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country. As I did at the beginning of and throughout the Buckley/Goldwater/Reagan/Gingrich conservative movement, I will try to lend my hand. I certainly will do what I can to make it a big-tent conservative movement. But just as it does in every great cause, one question has to be answered correctly: Whose side are you on, comrade?
If one thinks she needs grounding, give her an Edmund Burke tome, don’t tear her down. If one finds her bereft of sufficient philosophy, feed her naturally good instincts with the facts. Those on both sides of the aisle who insist on clinging to the idea of Palin as an irretrievably dumb bunny dangerous to our movement are fighting against the facts. There were always risks in picking Palin as the vice presidential candidate. Some of the risk has been rewarded, some not. But in the future, there will be far more risk in underestimating this woman than there ever was in elevating her.
