Parker is utterly confused.
Since this controversy has much to do with Palin ( “The well-fed Right now cultivates ignorance as a political strategy....” ) it should be pointed out that Palin is the type of conservative that she describes WFB as admiring. The radical. The outsider. The one who has the mettle and the record to go after the “well-fed Right”.
Parker, C. Buckley, Noonan, and Brooks seem to cast themselves as the well-fed right, when, although they accurately criticize the failings of the conservative movement of recent years, they fail to recognize Palin’s obvious antipathy and non-membership in those aberrations.
So, one can only conclude that it is Palin’s colloquialism, her style, her what?....her ineloquence that turns them off. Her inability to cite supreme court cases she disagrees with, when she’s actually been spending her time accomplishing things and reforming government for her constituents who overwhelmingly approve of her efforts?....and not studying arcane historical minutiae to impress the intelligentsia and the media gotchya gamers?
I think WFB would recognize the true conservativism in Palin, the radicalism and activism that she represents and inspires, and his congenial and kind nature would have embraced her despite the regional, educational, and intellectual differences. Perhaps, he would have strove to befriend her and influence her, rather than jump ship. WFB would have never endorsed Obama. Never. Give me a break.
Do you think Parker & Noonan really want Obama to win? Did Noonan not read the editorial in The Wall Street Journal (her paper, mind you) about the disastrous effects of a Dem trifecta?
I can understand a disgruntled conservative voting for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. I don’t agree with it, it’s not pragmatic, but I at least understand the point of view there. But no conservative, not now, not EVER, could vote affirmatively FOR Obama. Any “conservative” that does that doesn’t have very strong convictions.