Setting aside the needlessly provocative language (“Ivy League quasi-Bolsheviks and sodomites” – and yes, the pairing with “good hearted yokels” removes some, but not all, of the sting), I think that there is a more fundamental (and depressing, from your point of view – even mine!) problem. General Mobius pointed out the extent to which Palin’s instincts aren’t even that good, except, by your lights, on social issues. But I think the same can be said for the “good-hearted yokels” as a whole. Good instincts (again from your point a view) on social issues? Check. But what else? America’s role in the world? That constituency is every bit as supportive of our foriegn entanglements as is the rest of the electorate. Size of government? Sure, they love to hear politicians bash big government. So do constituencies on the left and center. But when the tire meets the road, they are every bit as supportive of the big ticket programs as traditional Democratic constituencies. The big government ways of the modern day GOP are in large measure a reflection of that. Opponents of both our adventurous foriegn policy and big government have to acknowledge that, as unresponsive as the government can be in some ways, on those issues, at least, the programs exist, and our interventionist foreign policy exists, in large measure because they are broadly popular. (Look at what happens when the GOP takes even baby steps to reign in entitlement spending.)

Look, I’m not celebrating these facts. With regard to support of our foreign policy, certainly, and size of government issues, increasingly, I join you in lamenting these facts. But facts they are.

On Lopez and VAWA, I think Biden is right on. After finding federal jurisdiction through the commerce clause for decades, no matter how remote the connection, the USSC all of a sudden decides that Congress has a real burden to meet on this issue? Legal scholars are still puzzled by those two decisions, regardless of what side of the debate you are on.

I completely agree with Gen Mobius – you can agree or disagree with Biden, but how can Biden’s answers honestly give you “more concerns about Biden than Palin”?

I was, in fact, complaining that we seem to lack alternatives to “smart” wrong-headed people and good-hearted yokels devoid of book-larnin’ .

The presence of a few people like Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev), Andrew Bacevich, and your good self offers some solace.

Are there a few like-minded mayors and city councilmen lurking in the hinterland? Let us hope.

“GOM, I think they’ve screwed up the country, too.”

I’m honestly curious – how have “sophisticates and literati” screwed up the country? From what I can see, “literati” control little apart from a few faculty break rooms; they otherwise have a hard time winning the shelving wars at Borders, never mind controlling the country. As for “sophisticates,” its an awfully broad term to my mind and sounds more like code than a term one would use to clearly define a class of controlling elite. What exactly do you mean?

GOM, I think they’ve screwed up the country, too. They’ve done so in no small part because there have not been enough people who opposed their agenda who could articulate their arguments effectively and dissect the opposing arguments to show them to be lacking. Making excuses for any candidate who bungles these matters concerning culture war topics–the very topics she is supposed to be most conversant with–is a bit like making excuses for utterly incompetent commanders in the field on the grounds that the other side has an eccentric field marshal who makes his battlefield decisions based on augury.

And let’s not get carried away with “instincts”. Other than flirtation with a secessionist party she now repudiates and a claimed opposition to earmarks she never actually possessed, what about Sarah Palin’s instincts strikes you as particularly good? I guess she’s still pro-life, but that seems like precious little to hang an entire hat on.

The rub is that the sophisticates and literati, who might know something, have screwed up the country, and continue to do so with dizzying rapidity.

Is the choice really between Ivy League quasi-Bolsheviks and sodomites on the one hand, and unlettered yokels with good instincts on the other?

All that is required is to note that Obama voted against the Born Alive Act on the basis that it violated Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade prevents states from asserting the personhood of an infant that has been born alive, then support for Roe v. Wade is an extreme, rather than consensus, position.

Now, I don’t know that Obama’s reading of Roe v. Wade is valid, but that’s his problem, not his critics’.

On Biden: He thinks there’s a “liberty clause”. What Biden is describing is the Due Process Clause, which contains the word liberty! He’s not exactly off his rocker there. You can disagree with his (and the Supreme Court’s) interpretation of that clause, but you can’t really imply he doesn’t know what he’s talking about just because you disagree with him. Then he slightly misdescribes Roe and doesn’t say anything about social peace.

On Palin: She’s totally incoherent, knows absolutely nothing, and tries to fake it. So of course it’s because Couric’s question is “oddly phrased”.

Ponnuru gets a lot of credit from people who praise him as a “smart conservative”. It seems to me he only gets that kind of respect because the people he works with at NRO are such slack-jawed morons. Next to K-Lo, even a hack like Ponnuru looks like the second coming of Socrates.