1. The Republican convention was pretty amateurish (by comparison) last night. The hall wasn’t filled and too many delegates and such looked distracted and bored. No bump will come from what’s happened so far, and the general impression is that Republicans are message challenged. The biggest cheers were for Sarah.
2. It turns out that Sarah has little in common with her fan Pat Buchanan. She was for Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, and the evidence is growing that she is the more pro-growth and deregulatory member of the ticket. That, of course, in no way diminishes her "family values." Pat has just explained that his views on Israel, Iran and such are about the same as Obama’s.
3. There are a couple of articles--one in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL--about grumblings in Juneau that Todd "First Dude" Palin has functioned as a "shadow governor" and has too much influence on his wife. Who does that remind you of? There’s more and more evidence that Todd is both brains and brawn (not to mention a caring and caregiving dad), and there’s is a rather singular version of a modern, egalitarian marriage. She’s the one in politics, as Todd explained, because she’s just "hardwired different" from other people. She’s got the political gene.
The convention was listless for two further reasons.
1. Lieberman's and Thompson's speeches were fine tributes to McCain's character, but they provided no clue at all as to how the policies McCain might follow as President will solve even one of the country's domestic policies. The message that McCain is a brave, honorable, and honest guy won't by itself get you very far with people who feel hard pressed.
2. The McCain campaign has spent most of Sunday and Monday knocking down stories about Palin being a seccesionist, or sharing Buchanan's anti Israel and anti Churchill views. This to go along with the most despicable prying and sesationalizing of Palin's family life. While the barrage has been mostly false and/or unfair (who asks Obama about how his young girls will do in the White House?) it has put the McCain campaign on the defensive and off message.
There is contemporaneous evidence that Palin supported Forbes in 2000. Whether this was only after Pat jumped to the RP, I don't know. I have seen that speculated. Her disclaimer in 2000 was clearly politically motivated after she was an elected official and it had been erroneously reported she supported Pat. All that supporting Forbes would say for her is that she wasn't one of the Kool-Aid drinking conservatives who supported GWB from the start. Who she supported in '96, is still up in the air. The McCain camp has said she supported Forbes in '96, but it is hard to believe that all the speculation about her support for Buchanan was totally false. I think Pat thinks she supported him.
As I said before, I seriously doubt the conservative bona fides of anyone who DID NOT support Pat in '96.
There is reason to believe that she is more paleo than your average GOP elected official. There is less reason to believe she is grounded enough to withstand the attempts to mold her.