Palin will probably function in a McCain administration more or less as Quayle functioned in the first Bush administration. Just as Bush used Quayle to shore up conservatives behind him, McCain will use Palin’s good qualities to cover his many policy sins and lock conservatives into another four years of futile loyalism. That could very well lead to another intra-party fight in ’12 that would put Palin on the wrong side. Meanwhile, having given the base Palin, McCain will think he does not owe them much else and may think that he has earned leeway to push his agenda in collaboration with the Democratic majority, whether on foreign policy, immigration, climate change or what-have-you. Assuming, that is, that this ticket can win, which I don’t think is likely.

In defeat the consequences will not be much better. Despite the continued neglect of social conservatives by the party, social conservatives will again be accused of dominating the GOP, which means in practice that their priorities will be neglected even more to counteract this false perception. Should McCain lose, as I think he will, social and religious conservatives will be blamed for it, just as so many have tried to blame the ’06 loss on social conservatives. Once again, the GOP will try to explain away its failure by pinning it on pro-lifers or any other faction besides the one that brought the party to this sorry pass.

What I should have emphasized above is how much I like Palin, which is why I wish she hadn’t been chosen or hadn’t accepted.

All I can say is this is a real desperate choice. Their internals must have sucked wind, looking a whole lot worse than the public polling let on.

I was going to vote for Barr but being in a swing state I’m scared enough with someone so light on experience being one old heartbeat away from the Presidency I may have to hold my nose and vote for Obama-Biden.

And welcome back, Daniel.

I think Palin still has some sort of Buchanan ties. Pat is still really praising her on MSNBC, and there is definitely a preponderance of evidence that she did in fact support Buchanan at least one time, or was at least favorable of him.

Charles Krauthammer and David Frum are against this pick saying that it will make the GOP look like it cares more about abortion than “national security.” Shows how much the GOP actually cares about the pro-life issue.

On Iraq, she has been critical before over the lack of a plan and exit strategy for Iraq – this is on more than one occasion.

Pat Buchanan has been praising her since early summer. I remember Chuck Todd saying months ago that Sarah Palin “worked for Pat’s campaign” on MSNBC.

But Bill Kristol likes her, so we’ll see about the whole thing…

I’m not even a conservative and I think the Palin choice — while unconventional — is no worse than Quayle and may help split women’s votes and energize the base.

More here: http://www.ratdiary.com

While this choice does energize conservatives, which will help close the so-called enthusiasm gap, I find the choice and the enthusiastic reaction to it to be worrisome for another reason quite apart from whether or not it will “work.” Instead of an opportunity for conservatives to develop some healthy independence from the GOP, the election will become another occasion for conservatives to fall in line and endorse a continuation of the current administration’s policies.

First off, it’s great to have you back.

But could you say something more about what makes you so confident that Palin’s going to turn out to be a net negative? I agree with what’s been said above, that she’s ultimately going to serve more to reach out to social conservatives, and in particular to women who are also social conservatives, than to Hillary voters, and the excitement so far among the GOP base – hell, even I’M feeling a bit of it – has been pretty remarkable. (The chattering class is another story, but they (we) aren’t America.) Is this just Larison being contrary, or do you have some specific concerns in mind?

I share your underwhelmed reaction to Palin’s elevation. A few random thoughts and questions:

1) Any new-found paleocon / libertarian “buzz” on behalf of the McSame candidacy will collapse five seconds after Benito Giuliani begins his keynote speech next week.

2) For McSame’s sake, I hope Palin was carefully vetted, although I have my doubts. She’ll have a pretty good convention week, and much of the Mainstream Media will swoon. Nonetheless, Palin could be one gaffe away from obliterating whatever chance he has of winning in November.

3) As bad a selection as this is, I’m not sure what you mean when you describe it as a “disservice” to Palin. No one is forcing her to do this. She could have said no.

4) It will be interesting to see how the so-called “Hillary Democrats” react to this. If enough of these professional feminists and liberals vote for McSame because of Palin (and sweep her anti-abortion, anti-gun control track record under the carpet) they’re more childish than I thought. One of the many reasons why I loathe identity politics.

5) You write, “[Palin] seems unlikely to balance the worst instincts of McCain and his [neocon] advisors …” Seems unlikely? Trust me, she won’t. She would not be on the ticket otherwise.

- One of McCain’s main anti-Obama talking points was that Obama lacks experience, an issue that Obama naturally would like to avoid. Now, some people are claiming that an advantage of the Palin choice is that it prevents Obama from bringing up the issue of experience. OK, but the more interesting question is whether it affects McCain’s ability to bring up the issue.

- An important part of McCain’s branding is that he is a “straight shooter” who will always put Country first (with the corresponding talking point that Obama is the sort of person who would rather lose a war than an election). The Palin pick is so blatantly purely political that it goes against that branding. Granted, every vice-presidential choice is based on obtaining some political advantage, but there is usually a semi-plausible story one can tell about how the pick is qualified to be president. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

- Unlike some of the higher-profile veep possibilities, Palin is untested on the national stage. She will not be used to the level of media attention and having to carefully watch what she says to the extent that somebody in her current position has to. One blooper about Iraq or Russia (for example), and it’ll be all over the news. Such a blooper would be more damaging than if it came from McCain or somebody more experience, because it would reinforce the media narrative that she is not ready for the job.

- Possible downside: we don’t know how good her media “presence” is. McCain has reported only met her a few times before the pick, so it’s unclear how well they’ll work together.

On the positive side:

- The pick shores up McCain’s support on the right. It may also help with some Democrats who are still upset over Hillary not getting the nomination.

- It provides an opportunity for Democrats to over-reach in their attacks on her. Try to paint her as some yokel and it just reinforces the idea that the Democrats are elitists that out out-of-touch with ordinary people.

- It puts some energy back into McCain’s campaign.

Well that was a new usage for me, sorry.

In any case, I don’t see how you can say it failed to generate media buzz considering nobody has talked about anything else since before it was announced. I don’t even buy the premise. More than media buzz, the biggest goal of this pick was to bring several disparate strands of our right-of-center quilt back on the team, and it that way I think it succeeded better than could be imagined beforehand.

He’ll probably find a potato that looks like Nixon.

Sarah Palin will do just fine.

I agree with you that the selection might be a disservice to Palin, as she is just getting started in her political career and will have to define herself in only a few months for the rest of her political career. That said, I think she is a brilliant strategic choice.

Many have said that her inexperience cancels out Obama’s but I see it as highlighting his resume. Now, Obama’s campaign cannot hit her chief weakness without exposing an opening to his–that of little experience and foreign policy concerns. Also, Biden and Obama cannot be aggressive toward her or memories of perceived sexism from the primary will spring up and remind Hillary supporters why they despise(d) Obama so much.

The only way this pick is a mistake is how blatantly strategic it is. I can’t imagine she would have been picked if she was a man due to her inexperience and youth. This may backfire as this seems apparent, at least to me.

You may be right, but I rather like the lady. She may do just fine. Look whom she’s up against.