Enduring some of the most hateful attacks from liberals as Sarah Palin has is one thing, but attacks coming from so-called "conservatives" like David Frum is another.
Here's Frum's latest edition of mindless word drool:
Now, question: WHY exactly is it problematic for the press to cover a politician who is widely disliked? Palin is not going to be president, conceded. But George Wallace was never going to be president either, yet time spent thinking about him between 1962 and 1972 was not time wasted.How the hell would Frum know about what the conservative world thinks about Palin when he's done his damndest to alienate most conservatives away from him. I think he spends most of his time around pseudo-conservatives (ie Peggy Noonan) because they travel in the same DC elite cocktail parties.
There is a mood I know in the conservative world to downplay Palin’s significance. From the vantage point of 2011, the enthusiasm for Palin once felt by many conservatives – including conservative intellectuals – looks excruciatingly embarrassing. Better to say, “Who us? Never! It was Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan who inflicted Palin on the national debate.”
So as a contribution to the debate, let me try to explain why the Palin phenomenon cannot be left behind quite so fast.Unfit for the Presidency? Sarah Palin, as a potential 2012 candidate, has more executive experience in serving just one day as Governor of Alaska than Barack Hussein Obama had when he announced his candidacy for the Democrat nomination (Illinois State Senator, voting "Present;" served less than a year in US Senate and decided to run for President). But Frum doesn't address that. Instead, it's just the usual "cheap shots and snide comments," from him, as the professor said.
In 2008, the Republican party nominated for the office of vice-president a person who is now pretty universally agreed to be unfit for the presidency. (Even Taranto agrees with that.) Concededly: it’s not the first time in the history of the republic that this has happened. But here’s the difference between Palin and, say, Spiro Agnew or Henry Wallace. The Palin nomination elicited a huge outpouring of argument from Republicans and conservatives denying that competence mattered at all in a potential president.
Admittedly, much of this defense was insincere. But unfortunately – not all. Palin we could quietly consign to the attic of Republican embarrassments. The apparatus of excuse and justification that surrounded and protected Palin until the day before yesterday – that still chugs away over at the Wall Street Journal – that apparatus remains an overwhelming impediment to any hope of a more responsible conservatism (WTF???) of the future.
The problem is, like most Palin haters, Frum cannot back up his criticism with facts. Like his rantings on talk radio hosts like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, Frum's Palin "critiques" are nothing but personal attacks from a jealous little man who is desperately looking for an audience.