Conservative NYT's columnist David Brooks writes of Palin's virtues - but running government is not one of them. All you have to do is look at her wake -- people love her or hate her. It's her way or the highway. She's always in a battle, always in a cloud of scandal.
That doesn't make good government. That makes a constant state of turmoil. Already McCain has set his campaign up as a battle between "reformers" and government. A McCain administration would be in a constant state of turmoil, where the most vulnerable among us would be the ones who would continue to suffer the most.
NYT: Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.
The idea that “the people” will take on and destroy “the establishment” is a utopian fantasy that corrupted the left before it corrupted the right. Surely the response to the current crisis of authority is not to throw away standards of experience and prudence, but to select leaders who have those qualities but not the smug condescension that has so marked the reaction to the Palin nomination in the first place. I'd suggest you read the whole column. It's good.