The Truth More Dangerous Than The Smears?

Perhaps Slimeicane Sarah is finally running out of steam?  The Washington Post had to go deep into the mothballs to drag out this old chestnut:

Governor Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the September 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would “defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush Administration officials, has since been rejected even by the President himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

Sigh.  Bush never claimed that Iraq was linked to 9/11.  And it is established fact that an al Qaeda affiliated group was in Iraq before Operation Iraqi Freedom.

But watch the entire Palin speech, and ask yourself what its context is - a concept evidentally completely foreign to Anne Kornblut:

Give up?  Here's a hint: which entity have Coalition forces been fighting the past two or three years?  Answer: NOT Saddamite dead-enders.

By contrast, perhaps USA Today has decided that facts might make better weapons against Sarah Palin's immense popularity with conservatives than another avalanche of scurrilous tabloidism:

Weeks after taking office as Alaska’s governor in December 2006, Sarah Palin vetoed a bill that sought to ban benefits for the same-sex partners of state workers. It was unconstitutional, she said.

This year, she rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted her to add two abortion restriction measures to a special legislative session on oil and gas policy, even though she supported the bills. Former aide Larry Persily said she didn’t want to risk offending Democrats, whose votes she needed on energy legislation.

Since Republican presidential candidate John McCain picked Palin as his running mate, much attention has been focused on her deeply conservative social views — including her opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest and her attendance at a church that promotes the “transformation” of homosexuals through prayer.

But in her twenty-one months as governor, Palin has taken few steps to advance culturally conservative causes. Instead, after she knocked off an incumbent amid an influence-peddling scandal linked to the oil industry, Palin pursued a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules and raised taxes on oil and gas companies.

That certainly fits the McCain/"Maverick"/RINO mold the Right has come to know and detest so well over the past decade, and makes it all the less of a wonder why Sailor selected her.  It stands to reason that I take exception with every one of those citations and cannot help but count them as strikes against her.

And yet....

Michael Reagan compared Palin to his father, and one can see at least some parallels with Ronald Reagan’s stewardship of California and of the nation.  Reagan fought a larger war for conservatism but didn’t mind allying himself across the aisle when he could reduce governmental power.  He also gave tremendous personal support to religious values, but tended to shy away from government policies to impose them.

Plus, as a practical matter, after all that the other side has tried, and continues to try, to do to her, I don't think you could pry the base away from its embrace of her with a nuclear-powered jaws-of-life.

I will admit to being more than a little baffled at why the same conservative Republicans who seethed at Maverick's mavericky maverickism for years are now cheering the proclamations of the McCain-Palin ticket being "more bipartisan" and more "populistly reformist" than Rogaine Messiah.  I happen to curmudgeonly believe that there's a lot to be said for sticking to your partisan guns and inviting centrist members of the other party to come on over to the Good Guys as the opportunities present themselves.  The GOP may not have all the right answers, but it's beyond crystal clear that the Democrats don't have ANY, and are extremely not-nice people besides.

That temporary myopia will gestate immense intra-party rifts in the aftermath of a McCain-Palin victory, mark my words.  But we're too submerged in the current struggle against the forces of pagan/Marxist darkness to notice.

I'll give credit to USA Today for originality, though.