The Great War

Sister Sarah's new book has become the battle standard for both sides in the GOP civil war that continues to rage on. Palin's supporters say the book reveals how uncommitted and ideologically weak the McCain campaign was when they wouldn't do what was necessary to win, and the McCain camp says the book is full of vicious lies that only ended up splitting the ticket down the home stretch.

The battle over the book itself is only a microcosm of the much larger battle over the direction of the GOP.  Moderates say the lesson of Election Day 2009 is that GOP moderates can win in blue states against embattled Dem incumbents, and that Teabaggers can't even win in red districts like NY-23.  Teabaggers on the other hand say that purging the party of RINOs is the only way to take the country back, even if it means short-term losses, and some are even considering a Ross Perot-style third party movement.

This has been brewing for quite some time now, and it seems Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, has opened the floodgates as Ann Althouse rips her book apart and in turn faces the Angry Teabagging Horde for her heresy.

(More after the jump...)

It is inane to be swayed by this blather. Most of Palin's opponents would probably say the same sort of thing — or at least would have said the same thing at the time, back before any negative stories about her family had appeared. Isn't it lovely that Sarah Palin has a nice husband and kids and she has a great job too?

Women have been patted on the head like that for years. It does not express more profound respect. Indeed, it often betrays disrespect under the surface. If — back when my sons were children — someone had told me that he was impressed by my work as a law professor because I was a "working mom," I would have felt insulted. Perhaps he only meant well, but I would make a mental note to be suspicious of him. The famous Samuel Johnson quote would spring to mind: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

If Sarah Palin did not see the limited value of Nicolle Wallace's comment about Katie Couric, then she is too pollyannaish and unsophisticated to be trusted with presidential power. Couric is a pussycat compared to the world leaders who will smile and exude pleasantries and then stab you in the back.

In turn, Robert Stacy McCain's defense of Palin is equally harsh.

We are still three years away from the 2012 presidential election, and I am disappointed by Professor Althouse's effort to portray Palin as not merely unready for the presidency now, but so irremediably inferior as to be permanently disqualified for high office.

Obviously, statesmanship requires traits more weighty than the sort of personal charisma that generates intense grassroots enthusiasm. Otherwise Barack Obama wouldn't be so far along the path to becoming a 21st-century Jimmy Carter. Yet what other 2012 GOP presidential hopeful has a fraction of the grassroots enthusiasm that Palin would bring to the campaign?

The Republican "Anybody But Palin" Coalition seems willing to discard that grassroots enthusiasm, without which Obama's re-election is a near certainty. (If Mitt Romney couldn't even beat that notorious loser John McCain . . .)

Any Republican who disaparages Palin without suggesting a feasible GOP alternative can therefore be said to be objectively pro-Obama.

The battle rages on for the heart and soul of the GOP.

And why am I not worried about the Republicans in 2010 and 2012?  In the end, the GOP is arguing "Is there anyone better than Sarah Palin to represent our party?"  That is the central question facing Republicans right now.  And brother, if the central question facing your political party is something like that, you have no chance of getting the country back.