More precisely, the description of Palin didn’t change so much as the tone used when describing her. As I noted earlier this month, the language they used to praise her after the debate could just as easily be used by her critics in a sarcastic and derisive way. At a certain point, they changed their tone and the words that were once complimentary became very harsh.

That’s all worth keeping in mind, but as important as it is to note that they are fleeing a sinking ship at an opportune moment it is worth pondering the reasons they give as they flee and wondering whether they might not have gone down with the ship had a more credible choice been made. Even if they would have jumped ship no matter what, many of the apologies for Palin are premised on the idea that the reaction to her has nothing to do with her qualifications and lack of familiarity with national policy and is based instead entirely on her known views on social issues. If Palin is being unfairly scapegoated for the campaign’s woes, or if she is being singled out more than she should be, her defenders have responded with blanket denials that there is any good reason to object to her candidacy.

Every day that the campaign falls behind a little more, the easier it is for those who have been more or less supportive up until now to simply write off the campaign and rush for the exits. Had the state of the race been otherwise, many of her harshest critics probably would have kept a lid on their problems with her. Now that it seems to be irrelevant to the outcome, they are airing their disagreements.

Then again, the real problem is not that they have become critics, but that they were ever cheerleaders and apologists to any degree for a bad decision. The reflex to be a team player and justify poor decisions is one of the things that enabled Mr. Bush for all these years, and that is the thing that people should find more troubling about the conservatives who used to love her but now love to hate her. In one sense, they are responding to the campaign’s declining fortunes, but in another they are simply passing the judgement they withheld while hoping for the best. Having waited and seen what Palin could or could not do, they determined that their previous, more positive assessment was wrong. Is the new assessment rather convenient? Yes, it is. It also happens to be much more accurate.

Need I point out to you that both David Brooks and Peggy Noonan–two examples of “elite conservatives” who have turned on Palin–were both head over heels in love with her candidacy when McCain was up by several points over Obama following the Republican convention. Sure, Palin might not have been their ideal conservative. But they were perfectly happy with the content (or lack of content) of her rhetoric, when it seemed to be helping McCain in the polls.

Palin seems to be have been selected, in part, because she’s the antithesis of Santorum–a gut appeal to the anti-intellectual, anti-Washington base. It’s become increasingly clear to everyone, except for the know-nothings and the Republican spokespods, that Palin was not a “serious” choice. She was pandering in its purest form.

What the Palin nomination did was manipulate a lot of people into becoming defenders of the McCain-Palin ticket. Some for longer than others.

2. I sometimes wonder if Palin will be this year’s Terri Schiavo. The grand, ultimately meaningless gesture by the GOP toward pro-lifers that they can point to as a scapegoat for their defeat, and reason why pro-lifers should shut up and play nice and be thankful for what little they get from the GOP, since we’re such an electoral liability. We should be glad they put up with us.