The main pro-Palin website is not only not happy with Fox hosts’ treatment of her, they’re not happy with her

Pundits are changing their long-held passionate positions all over the place. One day after Thomas (“Muslims don’t care about religion and territory but just want to own cell phones and laptops and be part of the global economy”) Friedman said that we should stop trying to democratize and modernize and globalize Muslims who don’t want to be democratized and modernized and globalized, Wasillan Enthusiast (a.k.a. American Thinker) publishes an article criticizing Sarah Palin, dismissing her political chances and the illusions of her supporters, and saying it would be better if she were with her family.

Also, WE is mightily annoyed about O’Reilly’s and Beck’s interviews of Palin, pointing out they both kept peppering her with questions about her victimhood instead of about policy, that O’Reilly kept interrupting her and not letting her finish her answers, and that in the 38 minute Beck interview, the full-of-himself Beck spoke for 22 minutes.

Even WE’s editor and ultra Palin champion, Thomas Lifson, striking a note he’s never struck before, tells Palin that she is in need of self-improvement, such as acquiring more knowledge about the world and the ability to think in concepts:

If she wishes to repair her image and go on to greater respect and public regard, she has ample time and resources for a custom-designed, mid-career education.

I would remind readers that for the last 16 months, every time anyone suggested that Palin might be lacking in the knowledge and intelligence needed to function at the presidential level, Lifson and his contributors (particularly the rabid J.R. Dunn), would essentially read them out of America, describing them as sinister “Northeast Corridor conservatives” who hate “real” people like Palin because they are artificial, unreal people themselves. Now Lifson is giving voice to the same reasonable criticisms of Palin that he himself has always condemned in the harshest terms.

- end of initial entry -

Laura Wood writes:

I like to think of Palin’s immense popularity, as exemplified by AT’s previous refusal to entertain any criticism of her, even publishing articles that explicitly referred to her in messianic terms, as a form of mass intoxication born of political desperation and the timeless appeal of a pretty woman.

LA writes:

Here are L.dotters responding to J.R. Dunn’s attack on “Northeast Corridor Conservatives. One L-dotter says, “Sarah is the only one who can save this country.”

Here I reflect on the difference between people like myself who had second thoughts about Palin’s political qualifications after initially being charmed by her, and people who never had second thoughts. It appears now that some in the latter group are having second thoughts.

Here is an entry about the virulent attack on Laura Wood at Free Republic after she wrote an article criticizing Palin.

Paul K. writes:

Thomas Lifson having apparently noticed what has been obvious to others for some time—that Sarah Palin does not express herself well, does not seem capable of discussing ideas, and has little grounding in conservative ideology or American history—expresses confidence that a mid-career education can bring her up to speed.

I’m trying to think of an instance where such a transformation has occurred. Does he picture a “My Fair Lady” scenario, with Palin as Eliza Doolittle and Karl Rove as Professor Higgins?

January 18

James N. writes:

Look, I saw what everybody saw on the Glenn Beck interview. She is what you, and Paul K., and others say she is.

The problem is, so is Clinton, and Bush, and Obama. We have developed a structural problem in that the individuals who attract the most support for the presidency are “blank slates” onto whom voters are allowed or encouraged to project their fantasies. In office, they are actors playing President.

This can, believe it or not, create an effective government with a capable and patriotic supporting cast. Of course, with a cast of Obamunists it is a disaster.

But the larger trend is that strong, intelligent (not intellectual), focused individuals who are secure in their own skins minus public adulation are no longer qualified for the office. THAT problem is going to be hard to shake.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 17, 2010 05:33 PM | Send