Today, I’m reprinting an essay “GenXDad” wrote about why he’s a blogger supporting Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska for the Republican vice-presidential nomination.  To me, GenXDad is one of the shining stars on Townhall.  He’s a centrist Republican who actually thinks about issues rather than just chanting angry slogans.  GenXDad has one of the very best blogs I’ve ever seen.  He puts some of the supposed “stars” of TH to shame.

Find him at http://genxdad.townhall.com.   He’s worth reading every day.

I salute GenXDad for the following piece on Sarah Palin, a remarkable American and a great candidate. 

Palin for VP?

Thursday, June 14, 2007 2:41 PM

For those of you new to the latest center-right blog phenomenon, a "blogroots" movement is growing in support of Alaska governor Sarah Palin for the 2008 VP spot.

I have to admit, I was originally skeptical of the idea of putting a governor of one of the reddest states in the nation on the 2008 ticket, but I'm warming up to the idea, and not just because I'm blogrolling one of her biggest fans but because she has the look and feel of someone who could very well be the future of the Republican Party.

And she might even help the ticket win.

Let me break down that last point first, because to me, it's the most important.  We cannot - absolutely cannot - throw away 2008, and every little thing matters, including the choice of VP.  So how can a little-known conservative governor from a solidly Republican state help put the GOP ticket over the top?  Three reasons:

1.  She is the ideal contrast to Hillary Clinton (who I believe will be the Democratic nominee).  Think about it, a young, beautiful, charming, articulate woman who represents the "flyover mother" with a blue-collar husband and four kids next to the shrill attorney married to a philandering ex-President with only one kid.  You cannot draw up a clearer contrast between "red state mom" and "blue state mom."

2. It solidifies the biggest weakness of the current GOP field: the gender gap.  For Republicans to win, we don't need to win over single moms, DINK wives and urban mothers.  We do, however, need to get a large percentage of the wives whose husbands will vote Republican.  Right now, Rudy, and Fred have some problems with that demographic.  Well, guess what, Palin IS that demographic!  She can talk directly to the women we absolutely must get to the polls to win and calm their concerns with Rudy's marital difficulties and Fred's cradle-snatching.  (I'm leaving Mitt out of this one, not because I don't think he can win, but because he has ZERO baggage on this issue, but he'd benefit from having someone like Palin on the ticket for the same reasons, just to a much lesser extent than the other two.)

3. Cheney proved that picking an intelligent and competent VP choice from a "safe" state won't hurt your campaign.  Palin has intelligence and competence nailed down, and a personality to boot, which means she'd be at least as strong as Cheney was for Bush in 2000.

So that covers the "how Palin could help us win."  Now, let's look at the other side - the future of the GOP.  Regardless of what happens in 2008, the GOP needs to build a Presidential bench.  Palin is smart, charming and brilliantly successful in Alaska.  She has over an 80% approval rating in a state that elects Democrats to the statehouse and where a GOP senator found herself in a difficult race.  You have to earn that kind of support, and you don't earn it by being a mediocre governor.

She's right on the issues - she fits right in with the GOP's core values.  Pro-life (a good balance if Rudy is the nominee), lifetime NRA member, fiscally conservative with strong religion and family values.  She's the Republican's Republican on the issues that matter, and she's been able to parlay that conservatism into sky-high approval ratings among those who know her best.

Her one drawback is she comes from a small state, and thus lacks the national stage.  But this is the kind of person who deserves a national stage.  If the rest of the nation got to know her, she could possibly find herself on the top of the ticket in a couple election cycles.  Putting her on the ticket puts the small-town, small-state girl on the national stage and she could develop a large following in no time.

Obviously, I couch my endorsement with the caveat that she passes the background tests and whatever else the eventual nominee throws her way.  Being from a small state, there's a risk she could stumble badly or something in her background that Alaskans don't care about could come out and damage the ticket.  But assuming she passes the vetting process, there's also a very good chance she could be a very pleasant surprise for the GOP, and a welcome alternative to Hillary.

Note from Steve:  I believe Sarah will pass those “background tests” with flying colors.  Alaska is a state with more than its share of political corruption, but Sarah has always been on “the side of the angels” and has fought hard against political lawbreakers.  As I’ve said about her and others, we have a right to demand that our candidates be honest – which she is – not that they be perfect, which no one is. 

 

______________________________________________

"I Don't Read That Slop"

When I complained about some (not all) of the essay on TH, that was the response of one of the best-known names on the site.  Any essay that attempts nothing more than to confirm people in their prejudices is contemptible.

Frankly, some of the TH essays -- including most of those on the subject of immigration -- are journalistic versions of dumbness pills.  "Why don't we just enforce the laws we have?" is a frequent question.  The answer is that the nation, for good reasons and bad, doesn't have the political will to enforce those laws.  Somehow, throwing nursing mothers in jail while their infants are home doesn't go over very well with the nation.  Also, at a time when our jails are full, we don't really have any place to put an additional 12 million people.  What's more, since we don't have a tamper-proof I.D. card, it would take the Oracle on the Mount to decide who's actually illegal.  Finally, how do we conduct a search for "illegals" (a term that basically means Mexicans) with irritating the nation's 45 million legal Hispanics, who might demonstrate their ire in the voting booths?

Of course, the much celebrated "Base" doesn't have answers any of these questions.  The Base consists not of people who answer hard questions, but rather individuals who whine and threaten. 

The following is a comment I wrote in response to one of the many essays on immigration.  I give it the head "Base Making Us a Permanent Minority?"

Even though this essay [by Rich Tucker] is beautifully done in part, like all discussions on TH of immigration, it misses the point. Republicans who generally favor the immigration bill (I'm one) see the victory of the base as an awful development. Let me explain: in 1964, key Republicans (especially Barry Goldwater) opposed the Civil Right Act. That decision caused us to lose the Black vote, seemingly forever.

Apparently, we are doing the same thing with the Hispanic vote. We are offending a large majority of the 44 million American Hispanics, the biggest minority group in America. Somehow, getting great visceral satisfaction from so doing is supposed to be compensation for a political disaster. Why do Tucker and others ignore this rather significant political reality?

On my own blog, I've been cosidering these inconvenient truths, along with some others. Somehow, the name-calling and sloganeering that have been the responses have convinced me that I'm probably right. As the "base" pats itself on the back, perhaps it might give a moment or two to considering the real issues involved. We are setting ourselves up to be a permanent minority, and that shouldn't be a cause for celebration.